Niels Harrit is a Weasel. He’s the Back-Stabbing Fredo of the Truth Family

by Scott Creighton

***UPDATE*** anyone want to join in on the conversation? We are having an interesting chat on the comments section… jump right in folks…

Just look at him.  He’s a weasel.

THE FREDO FACTOR

Disinfo specialist, red-chip peddling, snake oil salesman.  What he and Jones have done to the “Truth” movement is criminal. Their ridiculous claim about the “thermetic” material (that’s not even a WORD people) kicked the Truth movement right off the tracks.

Their own paper says that they can’t even be sure how it MAY have been used… they can’t even tell if it COULD have been used to blow up ANYTHING! Yet everyone runs around talking about this “highly thermetic material” as if it is the end all be all to the unofficial investigation.

Niels himself has gone on record saying based on the amounts of these chips they found in the dust, he estimates 10 tons of the shit was in the dust after the demolition.   10 tons? Unexploded “thermetic” material? What does that mean they actually USED to bring the towers down? 100 tons? A thousand? It’s completely ridiculous, like Jim Hoffman’s “Plausible” hypothesis for how the “thermetic material” was used in the demolition. Remember that? 100s of “illegal aliens” running around at break-neck speeds planting 1.8 MILLION individual CEILING TILE BOMBS and kicker charges disguised as FIRE EXTINGUISHERS?!?

Hey Steven and Neils, I got an idea: why not test for the exact kind of explosive residue that the controlled demolition industry ACTUALLY USES? Hey, there’s a concept. You know, the kind of tests that NIST and FEMA report that they DIDN’T run? The kind of test that you yourselves also admit you DIDN’T run?  The kind of test I specifically ASKED you to run, not once but TWICE now in private communications? And the VERY kinds of tests you yourselves suggest SOMEONE ELSE RUNS in your recent bullshit “thermetic material” paper?

You know, THOSE tests. That’s an idea, huh? The kind of tests that Greg Roberts told me in an email that he DIDN’T want to run because a negative result might hurt the Truth movement.  Those tests.

Niels Harrit, weasel? Yeah, here is the greasy video. Here’s a quote from the genius… “If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…”

What a genius.  Word to other Truth sites out there: stick to David Ray Griffin and quit talking about this ridiculous “thermetic material” bullshit.

here’s a video of some more of Neils doing what he does best; undermining the Truth movement from within. Enjoy.

Well, let me point out one more OBVIOUS fallacy in Mr. Harrit’s argument…

He states that these red-grey chips are CLOSE in composition to the type of paint used on the IRON BEAMS in the Trade Centers but slightly different… WHAT HE DOESN’T tell you is that the paint used on the TRUSSES would be slightly DIFFERENT than the paint used on the columns, or BEAMS.

In fact, he then goes on to argue that the NIST report tested the BEAMS with a paint deformation test to determine the temperatures that the beams were exposed to thereby setting an ignition temp for the paint on the beams… he DOESN’T mention the fact that the paint could have come from a separate source, the TRUSSES.

The trusses are what all the “molten metal” came from.  Look at ANY picture of the aftermath of the collapse of the towers.  You will see dust (the concrete floor systems pulverized) and you will see exterior columns and interior columns all piled up and scattered about.

What you DON’T see is the TRUSSES.  The THOUSANDS of STEEL trusses are missing. Why? Because when the HIGH EXPLOSIVES that were placed under the floors and inside the TRUSS systems, was ignited, the 4,000 degree plus temperatures MELTED the TRUSSES and PULVERIZED the concrete floors of the towers.

That is why some of the red/grey chips are attached to the iron-rich micro-spheres; because they were BOTH created at the SAME TIME.  The red/grey chips ARE paint, with a slightly different chemical make-up that what was used on the columns, and from the OTHER location that had red painted steel in the Twin Towers… the TRUSSES.

———–

***UPDATE*** Hey Debunkingblogspot… you are capable of quoting someone’s dissenting opinion of my work here, because I allow anyone to comment on this site, as long as they don’t threaten violence or use racist comments.  You see, I don’t mind open debate on what I write.

Your site however, forces someone to “subscribe” in order to post comments (which I am sure are then vetted for the appropriate reasons, whatever they may be) so that people can’t argue your points with you. Big difference when it comes to a real search for the truth as opposed to just regurgitating the same old talking points that someone has SPOON FED YOU.

Think for yourself. There is NO WAY someone could have “sprayed” on the “super nano thermite” evenly enough to create a controllable demolition. Besides the fact that no demo contractor would use such a ridiculously uneven method for dispersing EXPLOSIVES in a working building.

Also note, that the explosives the compare “nano thermite” to do NOT include the most COMMONLY USED EXPLOSIVE in the demolition industry… PETN… now WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

I have been doing 9/11 research since LONG before your site was up and I fully supported the early work of Steven Jones. But Roberts ties with Hoffman go way back, and yes, when he writes in his paper that he thinks SOMEONE ELSE should test for explosive residues, but REFUSED to run those tests himself, I am going to call attention to that… FOR THE GOOD OF THE MOVEMENT.

Perhaps you think that ONLY people who suck up to the establishment “Truth” movement are credible… everyone else is “lying”… but that is just simply NOT the case…

That IS however, EXACTLY what they want you to do. ONLY accept THEIR investigation and no one elses as credible research.

And one more thing, as far as Jones now saying that ONLY “peer reviewed” (you should really look into the history of that publishing house) research is “credible” these days… kinda reminds me of what the debunkers used to say about EVERY piece of 911 research, INCLUDING Jones’.

Don’t you think it’s kinda ODD that Jones is taking up the same talking points now that the debunkers used for years?

Think for yourself. Investigate PETN and det cord. Investigate the re-wiring contracts that took place ON THE ENTIRE TWO BUILDINGS… NOT JUST A FEW FLOORS… (since ALL THE FLOORS were demoed)…

… and compare the metallurgic break-down of the “iron rich spheres” to the composition of High Strength Low Density trusses… you will find that they are the same.

I am not debunking 9/11 Truth, I am trying to steer it in the SAME DIRECTION that Ryan and Jones, and Roberts, and HARRIT all begrudgingly admit it HAS to go… test for PETN…. the most commonly used explosive in controlled demolition.

BTW, unlike at your site, you and yours are FREE to comment here as much as you like. If you wish to discuss any of these points, be my guest. I don’t run an echo chamber, as you can tell from the comments that I clearly leave published on my site.

I want you and yours to think about this comment I found in an article about why it is that the peace movement has all but vanished under the rule of Obama… I want you to think about it real hard as it applies to the Truth Movement and our celebrity leaders…

“Why exactly the peace movement has caved to Obama is not entirely clear.  Like the single-payer movement, it is wracked by spinelessness, brimming with reverence for authority and a near insatiable appetite to be “part of the crowd.”

The “thermite” stroy didn’t hold up. The “thermate” story didn’t hold up. The thermite themobaric bomb story didn’t hold up. And the “nano thermite” story also doesn’t hold up if they can’t even be sure the stuff wasn’t used as an “electric match” as Jones et al say in their paper…

You and yours better wake the F up… You’re being led around by the nose here and told what to think and what to say… doesn’t sound like “truth” to me…

———————-

Advertisements

128 Responses

  1. Wow Scott,
    Your are bringing up points no one else has. Right or wrong, most of us are still on the same side, the collapses were controlled demolition.

    The question is whether this nano thermite stuff is an attempt to keep us squabbling over details and how do we deal with the possibility of disinfo.

    The perps are still walking around.

    • This specific disinfo is being used to keep us from looking for the actual evidence that really could, by law, FORCE a criminal investigation.

      According to the law, if explosive residue is found in any demolished remains of buildings, whether or not deaths were involved, then by law a criminal federal investigation must take place. And since we all know that there hasn’t been a criminal investigation as of yet, finding one simple piece of the puzzle would certainly change the direction of the truth movement.

      I believe that the entire “thermite, thermate, nano-thermite, thermetic material” distraction was designed from the beginning to keep grass roots investigators from looking in that specific direction.

    • Wow Scott, can I blow you. I want to chime in to about how “crazy” everyone is that doesn’t buy the official government bullshit story. YOU are the disinformation traitor. I hear the NYC DA is getting ready to go to the grand jury for indictments on several people,
      Jonathan Deaux

  2. What an idiot!

    The way you dispute a juried paper with solid science is to produce another juried paper with better science that shows reproducible evidence that the first one is wrong and why.

    Your assertions about the paint without a shred of evidence. The red/grey chips were specifically addressed in the paper and they were not paint. They ignited at 430 degrees C.

    • Did they really now? I thought the paper said that they had an “independent” investigator run those tests. And of course all different kinds of paint ignite at all different temperatures. My point is they are basing their conclusions on the fact that the paint on the columns ignited in the NIST tests at a certain temp, and there sample ignited at a lower temp…. well, I am suggesting that the paint on the steel trusses was different than that which was on the columns. Different paint, different temp. Simple right?

      • The chips ARE NOT PAINT. The PAINT THEORY was proposed by an ANONYMOUS BLOGGER – who also provided the images the debunkers started throwing around. The proposed Theory was the chips were Kaolinite(grey)/Iron Oxide(red). Too bad the RED data was used for the grey side in the debunking. Also, Kaolinite was not used in the construction and steel beams are coated with Fire Protection – 7 hours worth – not paint.

        • Hi Frank, it is my understanding that steel beams are painted red in order to keep beams from rusting while they are stored and waiting for use…. then after the beams are placed in position at the construction site, the workers ‘blow’ something like an asbestos covering on the beams to protect from fire. So the red paint goes on first. …..

      • THEIR sample 😉
        ‘… with better science …’ is defo superior evidence which should take precedence. Thanks Maturin42 for that.
        But this is quibbling over minor details. The whale in the room, that nobody seems to mention, is the overwhelming consistency of the effects of the u/s govt and the MIC and the media COMBINED, on the lives of the people. And it’s been bad.
        How many wars? How many millions of lives?
        So we say, “This isn’t directed by the people of Amerika. This is a relatively small number of people who are affecting the whole world and only because they have money. Unimaginable amounts.
        Money is their weapon. So we take it away. And all of the sick thinking that it causes.
        We make sure everyone knows in advance and then the whole Human race can turn over a new leaf. Collaborate in keeping everything going, just like it is now, but you’re doing it for life and love and Humanity. The bad and useless activities will disappear over time because they are not appreciated and they achieve no purpose.
        The beauty of this is that the first generation that grows up in the new world of Humans will be free of the poisonous thought patterns ingrained by centuries of conflict over money.
        They will appreciate the ease of flow of goods to where they are needed, and the sense of unity on Earth that they cherish.
        When there is no money They will have no power, but they will be celebrities, albeit with a deserved bit of stigma.
        They can stay in their armoured fortresses if they like, because there really is enough available for everybody, but Humanity is down to party at the end of its long-standing rival.

        • Scale up and scale down. You need to look at both simultaneously how bad Bad BAD BAAAAAAAAAD the u/s is. Not the people.
          And then, a la Putin, formulate a response.
          Defuse the weapon.

  3. You are in the wrong path traying to discredit Steve Jones (and many others ) just because the guy refused to look for your advise. There is plenty people who still have WTC dost so you can fallow your own investigation if you choose.
    No my friend there were Pools of MOLTEN IRON reacting for months:

    Those scientifics do no dischard there were other types of explosives used, they do claim termite was used.

    • I have asked Jones, point blank, to test for residual traces of commercial explosives in the trade center dust he is in possession of. He has avoided the issue for over a year now. I still have all the emails from him and from Greg Roberts. In fact, his last emails to me make it quite obvious that he wants nothing to do with the testing for explosive residues in the dust, though he calls for someone else to do exactly that in his most recent paper with Mr. Niels Harrit.

      When I read Jones’ review of Jim Hoffman’s “hypothesis” on how the “thermetic material” could have been used to bring down the towers, I knew at that point, that he was disinfo.

      All this time, all these well meaning people… following what? “Thermite” then “Thermate” then “Super thermate” then “thermobaric weapons” then “nano-thermite” now “thermetic” material…

      Years wasted, on some “super secret” technology, that you can only access through (ooooo) “military channels”… that’s convenient. No one took the time to start to investigate the few actual companies that actually COULD take down the towers or the COMMERCIAL GRADE materials they would have used to bring them down.

      Oh, and by the way, you know where he and Neils got samples to compare the lack of the infamous “red/grey” chips in the other demos from? You guessed it. They got those samples straight from CDI, the ONE company in the country that is THE #1 suspect in ANY controlled demo project…

      I am not questioning the amount of molten iron, I am saying that it is NOT from thermite… it is from the trusses being evaporated at about 4,200 degs plus… the temp that PENT generates during an explosion. That is why there was so much of the stuff. It’s the trusses.

    • and another thing, this has nothing to do with him not looking “for my advise”…

      I saw him in an interview discussion with another researcher and he basically did the exact same thing. Twice the guy tried to bring up the topic of testing for more conventional explosive residues and twice Jones deliberately changed the subject immediately.

      Jones has a history of working for the Department of Energy. Remember “cold fusion”? Jones admits that he got the call from the DOE to do a rush up job on a paper the researchers were doing. His job was to publicly undercut the research before they could submit for peer review, thus forcing them to present prematurely.

      When Jones publicly supported Hoffman’s beyond ridiculous “Hypothetical Demolition Senario”, I knew something was up. That was pretty much the last straw for me. But I really should have known long before that. After all, Hoffman published his 3 writings on the Harrit/Jones work, on the same morning that they were published in the Bentham Press…

      That means that Harrit/Jones gave Hoffman an advanced copy of the work so that he COULD write his glowing reviews and the idiotic “hypothosis”.

      Then of course, the emails between me and Jones made it crystal clear.

      So it is a bit more complicated than he “refused to look for (my) advise”…

    • Oh yeah, and CDI was also in charge of Ground Zero the very next day for the clean up. And CDI was the source in the NIST report that stated that the towers and building 7 couldn’t have been controlled demolition…

      and CDI just HAPPENS to be a source in the Harrit/Jones paper?

      starting to get the picture?

  4. The petition in NYC to get a new investigation started is getting somewhat interesting.

    A real investigation would subpoena every CDI employee during that time and under the threat of perjury and jail time, and if asked the right questions, could very well give us a big piece to puzzle. Would some of them talk?

    There’s only one way to know and I don’t count on it.

    • I real investigation would trace down the explosives used, then they would go after the manufacturer of that explosive. All this shit is regulated. You can’t use that much of a certain type of explosive without leaving a paper trail. PETN, RDX, HMX… someone would notice a large quantity of these materials going out in a shipment because one of the most important aspects of the controlled demolition business is… control. Everything is documented, cataloged, and itemized, down to the last detail.

      A project like this one, which would clearly be several world records (hell, Building 7 would have set several world records itself, not to mention the Towers), would require a lot of planning. Travel back and forth to New York to verify construction details would also probably be necessary during the planning stages. You consider that there are probably only a handfull of people qualified to produce this kind of demolition, then factor in the time frame and start looking at trips to New York…

      but of course, all of that would be unnecessary. Once you actually began a real investigation, I feel that plenty of witnesses would pop-up out of the woodwork, looking to secure for themselves some kind of immunity deal (or the book rights or both).

  5. And I forget to add that CDI did the clean up of the Murrah Federal Building and if one wants to speculate, the demolition also.

    They’ve been a very good gov employee.

  6. Steven E Jones and eight other scientists have conducted chemical research on the dust from the World Trade centers. Their research results were published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal Open Chemical Physics Journal, Volume 2, 2009. The authors write, “We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.” Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction and is used in controlled demolitions of buildings.

    • Lenny;

      Contrary to popular belief, thermite and the “thermite reaction”, as you put it, isn’t used that much in the demoliton industry.

      Cutter charges, used to “cut” columns or beams, are often high explosive (rather than the “low” explosives like thermite) like RDX. Just Google linear shaped charges. Remember, high explosives produce a great deal of heat energy as well… and in some cases are actually hotter (and much faster) than thermite. PETN, for example, burns hotter than thermite, and is used quite often in the demolition industry. It is also used quite often in military applications.

      • For you all;

        I did not expect to receive unmitigated praise for taking this stance. But I did so, just the same. I am sure that charges of “shill” and “plant” and “disinfo agent” are undoubtedly just around the corner.

        It is impossible to disseminate unpleasant information about a leading figure in a movement as personal as the “Truth” movement is, without a certain amount of backlash. This is too be expected.

        All I would ask is for you to read the Harrit/Jones (et al) report with a critical eye. Pay close attention to what is actually being said in it, as opposed to what you have been told is being said in it. You may find a disturbing set of very radical differences.

        As is made very clear (not only by Harrit in this video when he states that he doesn’t want to “speculate” as to how this “thermetic” material could have been used to bring down the towers but also by the “hypothetical blast senario” written by Jim Hoffman) in the paper itself as well as in other statements, that this material could NOT have destroyed the towers.

        That fact is undeniable. They even hint at it in their paper.

        Which begs the question, why continue with this campaign of theirs about “thermetic” material?

        Why not test the pristine dust samples they have for explosive residues and go on record with the results? Why not do exactly what they suggest OTHERS do in their paper? What I and OTHERS suggested THEY do over a year ago?

        So yes, I expect to take some flak over this. All I ask is that people just look at the paper itself with a more critical eye. Read what it actually says, as opposed to what they have been TOLD it says. This isn’t the “loaded gun” of the Truth movement. Jones has refused to look at the loaded gun he has right there in his own possession.

        Now the question of course, is “why?”

  7. I don’t think you’re disinfo, but neither are Harrit and Jones.

    From the report:
    Paint vs. WTC Chips
    1) Red/gray chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55
    hours with frequent agitation and subsequently dried in air
    over several days. The chips showed significant swelling of
    the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution. In marked
    contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when
    similarly soaked in MEK.

    2) The red/gray chips from different WTC
    samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C. The energy release
    for each exotherm can be estimated by integrating with
    respect to time under the narrow peak. Proceeding from the
    smallest to largest peaks, the yields are estimated to be approximately
    1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g respectively. Variations in
    peak height as well as yield estimates are not surprising,
    since the mass used to determine the scale of the signal,
    shown in the DSC traces, included the mass of the gray
    layer. The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron
    oxide so that it probably does not contribute to the exotherm,
    and yet this layer varies greatly in mass from chip to chip.

    3)The DSC used in our studies does not allow for visual inspection
    of the energetic reaction. Therefore tests were also
    performed with a small oxyacetylene flame applied to red/gray
    chips. Samples were either heated on a graphite block or held with tweezers in the flame. Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust.

    4) We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very
    little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter
    in order to compare with ordinary paints… Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5 mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately 10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically over 10(Power10) ohm-m.

    5) the red material contains both elemental aluminum and iron oxide, the ingredients of thermite, in interesting configuration and intimate mixing in the surviving chips. The species are small (e.g., the iron oxide grains are roughly 100 nm across) in a matrix including silicon and carbon, suggesting a superthermite composite. Red chips when ignited produce very high temperatures even now, several years after the 9/11 tragedy, as shown by the bright flash observed and the production of molten iron-rich spheres Correspondingly, the DSC tests demonstrate the release of high enthalpy, actually exceeding that of pure thermite. Furthermore, the energy is released over a short period of time… The post-DSC-test residue contains microspheres in which the iron exceeds the oxygen content, implying that at least some of the iron oxide has been reduced in the reaction. If a paint were devised that incorporated these very energetic materials, it would be highly dangerous when dry and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building use.

    Nano-Thermite
    1) Ordinary thermite ignites at a much higher temperature
    (about 900 °C or above) and gives a significantly broader
    trace than super-thermite [21]. All these data suggest that the
    thermitic material found in the WTC dust is a form of nanothermite,
    not ordinary (macro-) thermite.

    2) The pyrotechnic nanocomposite can be ignited using a propane torch….Indeed, the red chips can be ignited using a torch and they have properties of a pyrotechnic nanocomposite. All the required ingredients are present – aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon, and carbon – and they are incorporated in such a way that the chip forms (and sometimes ejects) very hot material when ignited.

    3) The energetic nano-composite can be sprayed or even “painted” onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic or even explosive paint. The red chips we found in the WTC dust conform to their description of “thin films” of “hybrid inorganic/organic energetic nanocomposite”. Indeed, the descriptive terms “energetic coating” and “nice adherent
    film” fit very well with our observations of the red-chips which survived the WTC destruction.

    4) The energy/volume yield for Al/Fe2O3 composite material exceeds that of TNT, HMX and TATB explosives commonly used in demolitions.
    It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite… (Note: This fact shows that there has been at least some consideration of commercial explosives.)

    5) No red/gray chips having the characteristics delineated here were found in dust generated by controlled demolition using conventional explosives and methods, for the Stardust Resort & Casino in Las Vegas (demolished 13 March 2007) and the Key Bank in Salt Lake City (demolished 18 August 2007). Of course, we do not assume that the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers occurred conventionally. (Note: See above note.)

    6) The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nanothermite or super-thermite.

    7) After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 °C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these
    shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the
    heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.

    8) The chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and also matches the signatures of many of the microspheres found in the WTC dust.

    Testing:
    1) The report does not state that Harrit/Jones relied on others for the 430 degree ignition. Rather, it states that “Some samples were also tested in a differential scanning calorimeter (Netzsch DSC 404C) to measure heat flow into or out of the red/gray chips.”

    Samples:
    1) The samples were all obtained from non-government entities. It seems that the samples were collected on 9/11 or 9/12 by residents in the area. Neither is there any evidence of any these persons being related to or employed by controlled demolition companies.

    CDI
    Willie Loman said “and CDI just HAPPENS to be a source in the Harrit/Jones paper”->>But I searched the paper and didn’t see CDI as a source.

    Conclusion
    I realize that there are many disinfo agents involved in 9/11, and I understand that a large of of the Intelligence Service is devoted to disinformation. But let’s not get overly paranoid. If you make a claim, please source it. I will admit that your blog inspired me to look at the Harrit/Jones study more closely. After having done so, I am convinced your claims are unfounded.

    The facts that stand out most clearly are:
    1) The micro-particles found in the red chips. Iron and Aluminum don’t just fall into micro-particles. They have to be manufactured that way. (I wish the report had gone into more detail here, and made a comparison between the size of Aluminum in the sample and the size in another mixture.)
    2) The identical chemical signature between the chips and thermite. (Would you claim that ordinary paint also happens to have the same chemical makeup as thermite?)
    3) The high amount of energy released when the chips are ignited.
    ->>>If this was ordinary paint, it would be really dangerous paint. If you painted this on a building you would run the risk of having the building implode like, like…well I can’t think of a good example right now.

    • Christopher:

      I am glad you posted this. I would like to take some time to look it over, but as most of it is straight from the Harrit/Jones report, I have already read it, and it wont take too long.

      However, you ask serious questions throughout your comment, so I would like to address those first.

      First: You are correct, I should have sourced the admission Jones made to me about CDI supplying the Stardust and Key Bank demolition debris samples Harrit/Jones used to compare the Ground Zero dust to in their paper (however, my point is that Harrit/Jones et al, should ALSO have mentioned that seemingly questionable source.). It was from an email communication between myself and Jones.

      “Willie Loman said “and CDI just HAPPENS to be a source in the Harrit/Jones paper”->>But I searched the paper and didn’t see CDI as a source.” Christopher

      The following is from an email between myself and Steven Jones, dated 4/06/09… I asked him about comparisons to other demolition debris that they mentioned in the report…

      Scott Creighton asks:1. Where did you source the information that none of these chips were
      found in the demolitions of the Stardust and the Key Bank? Your paper
      is impeccably footnoted, everything is sourced and supported… with
      this glaring exception. Why is that? I would like to know how you
      came to know this information, did you get the dust and look at it
      yourself, who collected it to start with… that kind of information
      would be helpful.

      Jones answered:Our team at BYU obtained samples of the dust generated from the CD’s
      of these bldgs, and then we carefully examined the dust ourselves —
      we did the work ourselves, hence no footnote to others.

      If you check the CDI website, you will find that both the Stardust and the Key Bank demolitions were handled by CDI. Ergo, CDI was the “CD’s” that Jones referred to in his answer.

      I don’t know about you, but in any study, a carefully detailed chain of custody is important to any sample used in the study, even if it is used as a control sample, as these Stardust and Key Bank samples were used. This demolition debris sample comparison is NOT an insignificant point; as evidenced by the fact that Harrit/Jones et al included it in their paper. And yet somehow they forgot to mention that they retrieved the samples from the very contractor that handles 99% of the explosive demolition in this country, and a company that was effectively “in charge” of the clean up of the debris, under strict secrecy mandates, two days after the attacks. That’s an ODD thing to omit from the paper, don’t you think?

      But, your question is a good one. No, they didn’t mention where those samples came from. And yes, Jones himself told me this in an email.

      Second: What does the actual study really say?

      They call this stuff a “thermetic material”… and though they SUGGEST it is one thing, ultimately they DON’T say it is…

      “We would like to make detailed comparisons of the red
      chips with known super-thermite composites, along with
      comparisons of the products following ignition, but there are
      many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison
      must wait for a future study.”

      “We make no attempt
      to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present
      until more is learned about the red material and especially
      about the nature of the organic material it contains.”

      How do they suggest that this material was used to bring down the towers, if they don’t know what the organic part of the ‘red layer” really is? The organic material is critical in taking the pyrotechnic “thermite” to the high-explosive classification.

      “We have observed that some chips have additional elements
      such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these
      significant, and why do such elements appear in some red
      chips and not others?”

      If all the “red chips” do NOT have the same chemical composition, how are they arguing that they are all the same “super-thermite” demolition material?

      “The red material does burn quickly as shown in the DSC,
      and we have observed a bright flash on ignition, but determination
      of the burn rate of the red material may help to classify
      this as a slow or fast explosive.”

      Burning quickly does NOT make this material a “high explosive” needed to facilitate the demolition process. Unless of course it was used, as they suggest, as an “electronic match” in the detonators… that being the case, their conclusion that they found .1% of the separated Ground Zero dust was these “red/grey” chips would seem highly unlikely (electronic matches are extremely small)…

      “Having
      observed unignited thermitic material in the WTC residue,
      we suggest that other energetic materials suitable for cutter
      charges or explosives should also be looked for in the WTC
      dust. NIST has admitted that they have not yet looked for such
      residues [11].”

      Then of course, my MAIN question remains: after all of this, why don’t THEY THEMSELVES simply run the tests they suggest someone ELSE runs for residual traces of other energetic materials suitable for cutter charges or explosives?

      BTW:

      Isn’t it curious in their comparison of heat energies from their red/grey chips to other explosives used in demolitions, that they didn’t include the most commonly used explosive in the demolition industry, and the hottest and one of the most powerful and stable: PETN.

      Odd again, that they should leave that one out of the mix. It burns hotter and is more explosive than TNT, is more commonly used than HMX. Strange that they should leave that little product out of the study, isn’t it?

      Anyway, I thank you again for your comment.

      If you look at their conclusion you will see that they say they have found an “unreacted thermetic material” in the dust.

      They DO NOT say they found “superthermite”… they do NOT say they found “thermite”… they do NOT even say it is an EXPLOSIVE… That is THEIR conclusion… not mine.

  8. As much stuff is still floating around in New York.. on house tops and in cracks of buildings…. people lungs….
    Why not get a sample from the actual location?
    I don’t think age limits the residue of explosives.

  9. I published all your comments and you know it. I don’t make people sign up, blogger does, although anonymous comments are allowed and I don’t think they require signing up.

    • I can comment on other Blogger sites without going through the screening process.. and of course, you can here as well…

      Yes, you have so far, published all my comments. congratulations. However, you did call me a “liar” and then refuse to back up the reason for that claim by publishing the emails between me and Roberts that I have openly asked for you to publish.

      The fact is, Roberts clearly stated that they didn’t want to test for explosive residues in the samples that they have…

      You say I am lying about that, I say I am not. The small clip of the emails he sent me shows that he said he isn’t going to test for that residue…

      So, you call me a liar. You call me “disinfo agent”… put up or shut up. Post those emails on your site. Now remember, I have them as well… so if they aren’t the same, I can take screen shots of mine still in the protected Outlook format PROVING I didn’t change them…

      Lets see if Roberts will do that…

      Look, look around you. Does this LOOK like a “debunker site”? Do you really think I am ANYTHING like that asshole tour guide?

      I tore up Shyam Sunder the day after his Building 7 announcement. Stayed up all night for that one…

      I critiqued Hoffman’s “Plausible Demoltion Theory” and he even changed some parts of it because of me. His wife thanked me for it (though I didn’t know who she was at the time)… got those emails too…

      We need to be careful in the Truth community. Just because someone offers a different course of investigation, doesn’t mean they are automatically a “disinfo agent”… we need to forget the idea that some people get a pass just based on their name alone… if their work lacks in some ways, we have to be willing to point that out…

      Kinda like the Obamalust from the fake “progressives”… or the 24%ers who never gave up on the criminal Bush/Cheney love…

      look, my point is very simple… Jones himself has now published emails between himself and someone else in which he clearly states that the nano-thermite was probably used as an electric match to ignite conventional explosives… something that I have been pushing for, for years…

      I am NOT the enemy. I simply want to test for explosive residues in the the Ground Zero dust…

  10. “I have been doing 9/11 research since LONG before your site was up.”

    Me too.

    [edited: added the word ‘up”]

    • John stated…

      ““I have been doing 9/11 research since LONG before your site was up.”

      Me too.”

      Yes… but the difference here is… I didn’t call YOU a “disinfo agent” and a liar… now did I?

  11. “I have been doing 9/11 research since LONG before your site was up.”

    I forgot “up.”

  12. I didn’t call you a disinfo agent, someone else who left a comment said you ” smell of disinformation.” You are the one calling people disinfo, it’s right there in the top of your article. I did say it’s hard to believe you fancy yourself a truther. I think truthers should engage in intelligent discourese, not call other people back-stabbing weasels.

    I did call you a liar, but I think the truth is you are just interpreting Gregg differently than I do, so my apologies. I think Gregg was justified in his concerns, and I think that’s exactly what he was expressing, a concern, not a refusal.

    I posted the full message from him so people can make up their own minds. I didn’t have the whole thing at hand or I would have done it right away.

    My position is simple as well. I think that if you believe highly credentialed scientists have been fooled by paint, after two years of research, when paint was one of the very first considerations, then you should back that claim up in the way they have backed up theirs.

    When Harrit was asked during an interview on Denmark television if he was in any doubt that the material was present, he stated…

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

    If you think this author/or co-author of nearly 60 peer reviewed scientific papers is fudging, or was fooled by paint, I think you should demonstrate this beyond the blogosphere.

    I think that they have found bombshell evidence. I’m not saying there might not be more to be found.

    • why didn’t my last comment show up on your site…

      this is what it said…

      “Obviously we didn’t run the tests because he obviously said he thought it could be detrimental to our efforts if they came back negative.

      The history stands for itself… We didn’t run the tests… they didn’t run the tests…

      and yet they clearly suggest later that someone else should in their “active Thermetic Material” Paper?

      Perhaps it’s not me who is seeing what they WANT to see here…

      But the important thing to remember… is I am not lying about what I claim. He chose not to run those tests. That much anyone can tell from the emails.

      So I would appreciate at least your rescinding of that claim (my being a liar)… you can still call me disinfo if you wish… but I am obviously not a liar.”

      I would really like you to address this comment, if you don’t mind…

    • “I posted the full message from him so people can make up their own minds.”

      I know… at my request. But at first, you did not. You simply called me a liar.

      “I did call you a liar, but I think the truth is you are just interpreting Gregg differently than I do, so my apologies.”

      Thank you. Accepted.

      “I didn’t call you a disinfo agent, someone else who left a comment said you ” smell of disinformation.” You are the one calling people disinfo, it’s right there in the top of your article.”

      Fair enough. But remember, I said that about Harrit. Not you. I have no reason to believe that you don’t completely believe everything you have written and have said. However, I believe differently about Harrit. Besides, he kinda looks like Fredo doesn’t he? (you have to admit, that is funny)

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

      What does that statement really mean? “Unreacted”… is that kinda like finding a few unfired bullets around a dead body and then claiming that proves he was shot? That is why the law states that finding residual traces of EXPLODED conventional explosives proves demolition…

      finding unreacted thermite doesn’t PROVE thermite brought the towers down. In fact all it really proves is the “hundreds and hundreds of tons” of this stuff that Harrit ALSO mentioned in that last video… DID NOT bring down the towers… because it didn’t go off.

      Why is that so hard to understand? He and Jones need to prove that the REST of the thermite ACTUALLY ignited…

      THAT is “proof”… do you see my point?

      “I had not seen it yet, it’s there now.”

      thank you very much.

      by the way, this is exactly the kind of debate I was hoping for when I wrote this article.

  13. And yes I do screen my comments, but I don’t censor people who conduct themselves in a decent manner. My comment policy is in my top post.

  14. I had not seen it yet, it’s there now.

  15. “I know… at my request. But at first, you did not. You simply called me a liar.”

    As I said I didn’t have the whole thing at hand or I would have done it right away.

    As you have been saying, they are looking into running the tests. Perhaps they want others to do it for lack or resources, or because they think it would be fruitful for other people to get in the game. The more people involved, the harder this becomes to dismiss.

    As to PETN, no, Jones didn’t specifically mention it when he recently talked about testing for conventional explosive residues. But he didn’t list a lot of others either. If he, or anyone else runs such tests I’m sure they will explore all candidates, if not, I’ll cry foul too.

    • John;

      You don’t write something like I have written with being completely aware of the backlash that is too come. so I don’t mind really what was written on your site. For years I have been trying to get people to start talking about testing for conventional explosive residues in that dust. It can be done, and I think it has to be done. and now, for better or worse, people are talking about it… maybe just a little. Maybe that will grow. I certainly hope so. For whatever reason, Jones posted those emails, and he himself is saying the nano-thermite could be nothing more than the match that lit the high explosives… so yeah, i took some creative license and I took a loud poke at Herrit… but I did it for a reason. I did it to hopefully get people talking about this issue. About these tests.

      one thing…

      “Perhaps they want others to do it for lack or resources, or because they think it would be fruitful for other people to get in the game.”

      who ever runs these tests is going to end up dead. NIST, RJ Lee, FEMA, the Joint Inquiry, the 911 Commission… they ALL chose not to run tests for conventional explosives… all of them… and they ALL made a point to say so in their respective studies…

      whomever runs these tests is going to end up dead because that residue is there. If “ray beams from space” didn’t do it, if “mini nukes” didn’t do it, and if the “nano-thermite” is what Jones just said it was, an ignition device for high-explosives… that means, if we are correct about demolition and I know damn well we are, that explosive residue is in that dust in MASSIVE quantities… anyone testing for it will become a target.

  16. Here are some things to consider. You stated…

    “PETN is important, at least I think, because of the Det cord. The primary high explosive used in det cord, is PETN. And det cord is used a great deal in the demo industry. It also burns hot enough to reduce the HSLA steel trusses to what Jones and the RJ Lee study found… “iron rich spheres””

    As I pointed out Scott, det cord wasn’t found, now I know you might argue all these people in the following videos were in on it, but I find it highly improbable. There were tons of people that helped in the clean up efforts.

    Go to 8:26 in…

    Go to 4:01

    And as I stated I think this would have been a bad idea, it’s too obvious and cumbersome to use miles of initiating cable and miles more of detonating cord.

    In the exchange of emails between Robert Erickson and Steven Jones, Erickson states…

    “I asked demolition experts about setting off charges with radio signals. They said it was very feasible.”

    So, could a super-thermite electric match have been used to ignite PETN?

    Did you catch this bit from Jones in the the exchange…

    “About C4, we have not yet looked for residues and indeed these will be difficult to find UNLESS there was a taggant, which is unlikely (if my hypothesis of out-sourced production of C4 and probably super-thermite matches is correct…)

    A taggant is “a chemical or physical marker added to materials to allow various forms of testing.”
    Now he isn’t saying it would be impossible, but this may be a very important point to consider, this may apply across the board, I don’t know.

    I think it’s important to note that there is disagreement among the researchers about how these materials were used. I think some believe them to have been more explosive than others. As Matt Sullivan pointed out in his RockCreekFreePress article…

    “The authors avoided describing the material as “explosive” because the flakes studied are too small to assess the bulk properties of the material.”

    But if you look at the description of such materials outside of their research are described as being highly explosive…

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermitetech.html

    As to what you said about how “finding unreacted thermite doesn’t PROVE thermite brought the towers down,” I disagree.

    It at least proves it was a component to the operation. You also state that they “need to prove the REST of the thermite ACTUALLY ignited.” My response is they found partially ignited materials too. So obviously ignition was taking place.

    A commenter on blogger states…

    “If C4 was used, then what caused all those molten and evaporated particulates? Could that have happened if nano-thermite was merely used as an igniter? Etc. etc.”

    You addressed that, but what about the molten metal?

    My bottom line, thermite was used, there is no reason for it being there other than being a part of the demolition, that is huge. I’m game for other research though.

    • (reposted comment from John’s site…)

      so.. you are using the History Channel’s Hit Piece to counter my evidence? That’s interesting…

      1. in the first video that YOU provide a link to, @ the 8 minute mark, the guy from the Popular Mechanics Hit Piece says…

      “In the conspiracy realm, there isn’t a worry about factual accuracy… it SOUNDS GOOD… so whomever weaves the craziest tale, kinda wins…”

      (remember, this is the “evidence” that YOU provide me (the “disinfo agent”) and your readers with…)

      The individual you are referencing in the first video is Bret Blanchard… he is a photographer, not an explosive demolition expert. He is also employed in the demolition industry, it is his bread and butter. He runs a website for the demo industry and he was a key State Department “witness” in their attempt to prove it wasn’t “controlled demotion”

      He ALSO states that he saw no remote detonator devices, the EXACT kind that Jones says MUST have been present to trigger the explosions. If you are going to take his word of ONE thing, it would seem you should have to take his word of EVERYTHING, right?

      so yeah, I think the first guy, the photographer who gets PAID HIS LIVING by the demo contractors, and who is a STATE DEPARTMENT witness AND who is on the History Channel’s hit piece… is probably not a good source of info…

      2. 2nd video evidence...Mark Loizeaux... of CDI… wow… you are actually going to quote Mark Loizeaux as the other expert who says it wasn’t controlled demolition? WOW…

      Loizeaux is a government contractor who has made tons of cash since 9/11. He was listed in the NIST report as the “consultant” who explained to them why Building 7 wasn’t a controlled demolition. Of course, he is on record for admitting that he called people in Lower Manhattan and told them, while the towers were still standing, that the towers were going to come down. He is ALSO the guy the government put in charge of the scene to “clean it up” after 9/11.

      He is the LEADING demolitions expert in this country and possibly the world, and he is the LEADING suspect…

      AND HE IS THE GUY YOU BRING UP AS EVIDENCE… on the BBC hit piece?

      3. “As I pointed out Scott, det cord wasn’t found…”

      Det cord wasn’t found for 2 reasons… the guy in charge of the clean up was the guy who rigged the demolition… and the det cord EXPLODED… as opposed to the nano-thermite chips… which didn’t (ever wonder how they survived the heat that melted the steel trusses? 10 tons of it?)

      4. “”About C4, we have not yet looked for residues and indeed these will be difficult to find UNLESS there was a taggant, which is unlikely…”

      Taggant aren’t used to detect explosive residue… they are there to determine who made it, and what lot number it is from…

      Taggants were NOT used in the detection of explosive residue of Flight 800…

      The entire discussion about “taggants” are a distraction. They aren’t used to determine if an explosive was used, and I have made that point to Jones already.

      Google “taggants” and find out for yourself.

      And I have already explained how EASY it is to test for explosive residues. Google Griess reagent tests or just Google Explosive residue environmental impact testing and you should find SEVERAL companies that run tests like these, every single day.

      All of this info was emailed to Jones by the way

      5. as far as wtc7 link is concerned, that is Hoffman, the same guy who came up with the “1.8 million ceiling tile bombs” theory.. nuf said there right.

      but that is interesting that you show a quote from someone who states that Jones and Harrit CLEARLY state in their hypothesis that they don’t even know if their “nano-thermite” was an “explosive in the first place…

      I think people around here called me a “disinfo agent” for making that very same claim… now you have posted it coming from another source…

      thanks, that kinda clears that up for me, doesn’t it?

      6. “It at least proves it was a component to the operation.”

      I will give you that… and I would add, that Jones’ email seems to support the idea that the “nano-thermite” was simply the ignition method of the high explosive…

      So it would seem on at least this one thing, we are ALL in agreement.

      7. The only proof that thermite was used at all, is the “iron rich spheres”… but if you consider that they are in fact the missing 23,000 trusses made of HSLD steel, then where does that leave us?

      The molten metal in the debris is clearly the trusses and the steel floor pans that seem to be missing from each and every picture I have seen of Ground Zero. Just go look at the pictures. Read what I wrote about it.

      I have written about 12 different articles about this stuff over the last 2 years. I’ll put them all in one place and you can look at them. They answer many questions that have come up today, and many others that will.

      for the record. I am glad we are discussing this reasonably now. this is what activists do, IMHO. We may disagree, but that doesn’t mean either of us is out to hurt the cause.

  17. You really need a Forum Board willyloman, this is great stuff!

  18. Great comments and answers here….
    about that ‘anyone who tests for demo explosives’ would b e killed…. good point. so, we need to have a large backed group.. a well publicized group… and protected group who will run the test on video and live… like a on-going project that is open to all viewers of the internet. None of the group will travel by plane… take a train….. do not drive…and don’t travel in groups….
    good grief… how would they be kept safe?

  19. Wyllo:

    Few Scientifics dare to speak ON 9-11 and you call them disinfo agents

    None one ever claimed wether other type of explosives were used as Harrit says here:

    Please stop calling Jones a Dissinfo agent. He was there long before you and i and no one else.
    It’s very hard to find conventional explosives.

    They did found Nano Thermite.

    • “None one ever claimed wether other type of explosives were used as Harrit says here:”

      I can’t understand what you are trying to say… are you saying that Harrit claimed that no one ever claimed before that conventional explosives were used to demo the towers?

      “He was there long before you and i and no one else.”

      If you are trying to suggest that Steven Jones was the start of the Truth movement, you are way off…

      Jones put his hat in the ring rather quietly in late 2005 in a closed lecture at BYU. Then in 2006, Sept 2006, he put a paper on the BYU website… that paper I still link to on the right over there… That is when he “came out” so to speak… late 2006.

      David Ray Griffin published “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions” in 2005. He published “Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action” in 2006. In fact, Griffin was partically responsible for Jones’ acceptance in the truth movement because he and Peter Dale Scott published Jones’ 2006 paper in their book “9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out”.

      David Ray Griffin has been a Truth Activist since 2003.

      Paul Thompson has around since really the very beginning. In fact he is credited for having influence David ray Griffin back in 2003. Thompson’s “Terror Timeline” is probably one of the most valueable resources for accurate unbiased information about what happened that we have. He was around for about half a decade longer than Jones. And his work is vastly more influential…

      Even before the 911 Commission Report came out, and even before it’s being formed, there were MANY “truthers” out there. Micheal Ruppert, Barry Zwicker…

      in 2002, Andreas von Bülow , wrote this in his book “The CIA and Sept 11″…

      “”If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars” and “They have hidden behind a veil of secrecy and destroyed the evidence – that they invented the story of 19 Muslims working within Osama bin Laden’s al-Qa’eda – in order to hide the truth of their own covert operation

      and of course there have been many many others.

      as far as laying off Jones, and the statement you made about it not being “easy” to find traces of explosive residues in the dust…

      Jones once asked me to tell him how to test for residues… I thought that was odd coming from a chemist… asking me, just a guy, how to test for residues… but I did the work, and I emailed it to him, three times… he kept acting like someone was “blocking” his emails…

      That is the day I quit this site… that was the minute I knew something else was going on…

      This is what I sent him…

      ““I responded 3 times you your question about how to test for these explosive signatures.

      1. I sent you PDFs and links to a place where you can purchase a registered testing kit that uses a reagent process.

      “Sirchie – Explosive Residue Test Kit – cat ERTT10″

      http://www.leacorp.com/pdfs/Forensic_Supply_Products/12_forensicana.pdf

      2. And I sent you links to a company that you can send the materials off to in order to have them test the samples in their labs.

      Leeder Consulting: Explosives Residue Analysis

      3. And I also sent you detailed information on how to use the Griess reagent process, not only how to use the process but detailed information on the preparation of the reagent itself.

      The key to selective and sensitive explosives trace identification by TLC lies in the visualization reagent. Griess reagent, in a number of versions, has proven to be the most popular means of visualization.”

      One question, three clear and precise answers.”

      now… if he wants, he can run the tests himself with a kit I found for him (there are MANY out there) OR he can SIMPLY send the samples off to Leeder and THEY will do the work and just bill him (and the many people sending him cash everyday)… OR he could actually run a Griess Reagent test, like the text book I FOUND for him says…

      As you can see, lennon… there are MANY ways to test that material…

      I emailed him this 3 times…

      I have written about it, and blogged about it… and he has YET to say ONE word on the record…

      all he has done is claim he can’t find a “taggant”? and he is a chemist?… come on now…

  20. 🙂 I’ll give you some points here, touché.

    I said…

    “It at least proves it was a component to the operation.”

    You said…

    “I will give you that.”

    Good, we are getting somewhere then!

    I’ll discuss things reasonably all day, that was always my goal!

    And yes, I do use debunking sources to refine my arguments…

    Why ‘Debunkers’ Help The 911 Truth Movement…
    http://www.rense.com/general73/whyd.htm

    How many people were involved in the conspiracy in your opinion? I think as few as possible would be the goal. This is a common argument used against us…

    http://www.911research.wtc7.net/faq/conspiracy.html#numbers

    I think being a covert operation, a covert demolition is most likely, and this explains many of the detractors arguments, as opposed to them being involved…

    http://911review.com/means/demolition/covert.html

    I know, how dare I use links from Jim Hoffman, but regardless of what you think of him, the information referenced in his post I used came from Los Alamos.

    Have we not established that det cord was not needed? If it was not needed, why use it? Why risk being caught installing miles of it? Why risk one of the people involved in the clean up finding it, or a blasting cap? These included many firefighters as can be seen in the videos.

    You state…

    “He ALSO states that he saw no remote detonator devices, the EXACT kind that Jones says MUST have been present to trigger the explosions. If you are going to take his word of ONE thing, it would seem you should have to take his word of EVERYTHING, right?”

    As Gregg pointed out in the blogger email exchange about the radio receivers…

    “Those could have been made exceedingly small, as well as disguised.”

    I do not think you are a disinfo agent, I think you are a good guy, but I disagree with your tactics. I’d like to talk to you by phone. My email is:
    true (edited by request) @gmail.com

    • I would certainly like to speak with you. Do you wish me to remove the email address, or is it one you have for your site?

    • you asked…

      “As Gregg pointed out in the blogger email exchange about the radio receivers…

      “Those could have been made exceedingly small, as well as disguised.””

      ok… well do those “smaller” “disguised” receivers ONLY work with nano-thermite, or could they also trigger PETN as well? Remember, Jones (one of the primary researchers in that study) is hinting that the thermite may have been an electric match that detonated other explosives… so even people on their inside are starting to look at this another way…

    • “Have we not established that det cord was not needed? If it was not needed, why use it? Why risk being caught installing miles of it?”

      What do you mean “not needed”?

      They couldn’t plant a million bombs without attracting some attention… they couldn’t change all the ceiling tiles (haha) or put linolium on all the floors (heehee)… so what could they do that wouldn’t attract too much attention?

      Give you an example… almost every single Truth advocate out there KNOWS about the “cabling upgrade contract” that went on for 2 years with the suspect security company… yet no one suspects… even among us…

      why is that? Because no one put together the cable up-grade with the det cord…

      they installed the explosives right in front of the people in those offices, while they were working.

      That is why they needed det cord.

      And right now, not even Harrit or Jones or Roberts even attempt to offer a plausible theory on how the “nano-thermite” was used to demo the floors…

  21. “The molten metal in the debris is clearly the trusses and the steel floor pans that seem to be missing from each and every picture I have seen of Ground Zero.”

    Since when does controlled demolition produce such results?

    • “Since when does controlled demolition produce such results?”

      Since when has a controlled demolition project been conducted as a secret, right in front of a billion watching eyes, with buildings that were 110 stories tall? Not to mention, with 3,000 cases of premeditated murder hanging in the balance?

      Det cord is used by the military as well. They use it to clear mines, they use it to take out trees, they use it to take down poles… and they use it to take out metal doors and pipes… it does burn hot enough to melt steel. It burns almost as hot as thermite… just a hell of a lot faster.

      Check out my article on the Missing 23,000 Trusses… if those trusses weren’t vaporized into the “iron rich spheres”, then they would be littering the site at Ground Zero… but instead, I dare you to find ONE… just ONE… That is the “molten metal” and that is the “iron rich spheres”…

      now maybe Jones is correct about the electric matches being nano-thermite… I don’t know… but those trusses went somewhere…

  22. BTW, you keep asking why they don’t do these tests, but then say, “who ever runs these tests is going to end up dead.” Is that not a good reason to not do them!?

    • “BTW, you keep asking why they don’t do these tests, but then say, “who ever runs these tests is going to end up dead.” Is that not a good reason to not do them!?”

      why do you think I am trying to get someone Else to do them? 🙂

  23. “I would certainly like to speak with you. Do you wish me to remove the email address, or is it one you have for your site?”

    Yes please remove, I’m up right now, please write me.

  24. “ok… well do those “smaller” “disguised” receivers ONLY work with nano-thermite, or could they also trigger PETN as well?”

    I don’t know, why not?

    “why do you think I am trying to get someone Else to do them?”

    What? You have been asking why they don’t do them, I’m confused.

    “Since when has a controlled demolition project been conducted as a secret, right in front of a billion watching eyes, with buildings that were 110 stories tall? Not to mention, with 3,000 cases of premeditated murder hanging in the balance?”

    My point exactly about covert demolitions! Controlled demolition does never produced such results.

    • you state:

      “Since when has a controlled demolition project been conducted as a secret, right in front of a billion watching eyes, with buildings that were 110 stories tall? Not to mention, with 3,000 cases of premeditated murder hanging in the balance?”

      My point exactly about covert demolitions! Controlled demolition does never produced such results.

      ——————-

      These buildings came down via a carefully planned controlled demolition. Building 7 was more conventional (though I don’t think it was meant to be… Please read my article, “Shock Opera – Act 4: Building 7 and Flight 93, the Grand Finale That Wasn’t”) certainly, but the Towers were definitely a highly controlled demolition.

      But it was a demolition that they HAD to make certain changes in technique. One of those changes was the complete pulverization of the floors. With 110 per building, they would get in the way pretty quickly, so they wanted them completely reduced to dust… well, if I am correct, the only way to have done that is from the underside… from inside the truss system.

      as a direct result of the need to use a good deal of high explosive under the floors, the trusses that were right there were also vaporized… melted by the extremely high temps of all the PETN… also, the floor pans were melted as well.

      My first answer was being a bit factious… this last answer I just gave you explains the technical differences between a typical demolition project, and this one.

      In most demolitions, they want to break up the concrete floors, but not scatter them all over the downtown area to make a mess to clean up. In this one, that was the complete opposite. Since they were going to blame it on the terrorists, they figured they could pulverize the shit out of the floors so they had less to clean up…

      • and just to make sure there are no misunderstandings here, I don’t think anyone chatting here is attempting to spread disinformation. We have a somewhat different take on certain aspects of this case, but that’s not to say that the people here aren’t arguing their points in good faith. I certainly hope I haven’t left anyone with the wrong impression. That said, now lets have at each other again… it’s fun. night all.

  25. Grr, I mean…

    Controlled demolition HAS never produced such results.

  26. Screw it, I don’t care, keep the email up.

  27. In the exchange of emails between Robert Erickson and Steven Jones, Erickson states…

    “I asked demolition experts about setting off charges with radio signals. They said it was very feasible.”

    This is my point about det cord.

  28. I know, check your email again.

  29. It was fun reading it too….. even this morning…..

  30. Fascinating stuff, I find it hard to believe the dust wasn’t tested for conventional explosives… I thought that’s why they used thermite – to fool bomb-detecting dogs and testers. With that stuff all over New York surely someone would have found standard explosive residue.

    The fact that these nanothermitic flakes didn’t burn up and were found in 4 of 5 samples is kinda hard to fathom I agree.

    Either way it’s nice to have such credentialed guys out fighting to get the idea of a controlled demolition out there – and at least getting people to take notice of the issue… If they are disinfo I guess what is the motivation? Have they really derailed anything? Theres another investigation brewing in New York and the A&E movement so at least it’s not completely dead.

    • Greeneyes:

      I am having to take a little break for the next two days, but when I come back full time, Thursday, I promise you, I will be working on moving forward with a campaign to get dust samples tested for explosive residue.

      Jones himself is supposedly working on testing for C-4 residue, the problem with that though, is that C-4 isn’t used in explosive demolition either.

      I dont know if they are disinfo or not, but right now, and ever since they started with “thermite”, it’s just my opinion that they are looking in the wrong direction. It seems they keep concentrating on the military as the culprit, and I think that this group would have “privatized” this job; subbed it out to professionals (like they do with everything else). So looking for the evidence of a professional demolition should be the next thing we do.

      and in two days, we will.

      Thanks for your comments. Check back in a couple days.

  31. Hi willyloman

    Can you get hold of some WTC dust for me. A friend in the National Physical Laboratory nano-materials department is prepared to do some more testing which I will pay for.

    Thanks

    Mark Golding

  32. The corrugations of the floor panels had C4 poured into them and lightweight concrete poured over welded steel mesh. Lightweight concrete doesn’t have the strength to grip rebar well, so it’s not used.
    When the C4 detonated the trusses were ripped apart.
    The rebar seen is from the concrete tubular core. After 4 floors detonated, 40 feet of concrete core walls detonated. The detonation circuits used security phone lines on each floor and inside the core. Below the 43rd, a different distribution system was used which caused the core of WTC 2 to stand for a few seconds while it initiated the more standard det cord distribution.

    Such systems are flame propagation systems and are safe to leave sitting around where RF might set off electric caps. They use a cap more like an old fuse cap. Once the det cord explosive circuit took over the demo progressed to the ground quickly.

    Demolition discussion is not really useful to gaining more truth and protection of our Constitution. It scares people too much, heavy cognitive dissonance. However, between people who are accustomed to it and trying to actually reason it. The fact is that there is no way placement and distribution could be done. And they were nothing short of perfect. The Twins were built to demo. They were custom engineered precision concrete explosive containers fro high explosives in the shape of architectural elements. Talk about cognitive dissonance! We confront “the big lie”.
    Our tax dollars paid for it and are paying for the truth of it to be dilated and confused, distracted and abused in a post 9-11 disinfo psyops while competent professionals capable and qualified to clarify sit scared stiff to be “the one” that confirms the truth. Two presidents, one on the way out and the other on the way in described the basic scenario that built the Twins as they were.

    [audio src="http://algoxy.com/psych/audio/military_eisenhower1_17_61.mp3" /]
    [audio src="http://algoxy.com/psych/audio/jfk_secrecy.mp3" /]

    nano, DEW, nukes, no plane, are all misinformation, psyops put into the truth movement intentionally to mislead, and mis leaders have engaged it to the point of nausea.

  33. Mr. Brown;

    Though I don’t know much about the demolition applications of C-4, I agree with your assessment of the “nano, DEW, nukes, no plane” misinformation.

    And I certainly agree this stuff has been run into the ground.

    I have to ask… weren’t you one of the first talking about explosive demolition years ago?

    anyway, you have a good site.

  34. Hello Willy Loman,

    My site went up in late 2003.
    I began expressing facts of demolition online in late 2002 after a year of seeking structural details to jog my memory on the design of WTC 1 which I had watched 2 hours of in 1990.
    Finally about a year after 9-11 I went through a period of seriously creating a situation where I had to remember, and I did. Needless to say, there were goose bumps, because I remembered the “special, corrosion resistant, anti-vibration plastic coating” that only welders with a security clearance could weld because it was flammable.
    Thanks for the recognition of the quality of my site. It is very different from all the others because it only relies on actual evidence while consolidating the social dynamics of truth seeking to expose a major psyops set in place to derail Americans seeking justice in protection of the Constitution. Soon I’ll add a page that integrates the many images that truth seekers are used to seeing that are misrepresented to try and show steel core columns into descriptions of how the structure that stood, with a cast concrete tubular core and the images of construction fit together. In essence it will be the only source of an accurate and comprehensive description of the tower that is consistent.
    Truth seekers at this point are deeply confused in the barrage of over-information, misinformation and layers of unaccountable miss-leadership. The perpetrators intended exactly this and the last 30 years of social conditioning prepared America psychologically to be dependent on false authority of media-type presentation have been in preparation.
    Logically, if the Constitution is to be protected, the disinformation must be countered. The only way I can see this is that information must be vetted by sincere truth seekers to determine its usefulness for gaining more truth. Agents of the disinformation will not take part in this except to foul it, exposing them.

  35. BTW, C4 is the prime HE used in demo by the military. 24kfps, very high brisance, makes it very suited.

  36. Mr. Brown

    I don’t doubt that C4 is a powerful HE and it certainly could have been used to cut the columns or say to break up the spandrels at the welds so that the exterior column segements would fall apart.

    But I have a hard time with C4 as the primary HE being used to pulverized the floors and dispose of the floor trusses. Heres why;

    1. Dispersal – C4, as you know, would have to be placed in many locations inside the floor system up under the steel floor pan. In order to get the floors to break into dust like they did, as opposed to just breaking it up like a sheet of peanut brittle, they would have to put huge amount of small charges all over the underside of that steel floor pan.

    It could be done, but you are talking about many, many charges being placed, probably, while workers were in the offices. Even if they did it at night, you are still talking about a massive undertaking.

    It’s not impossible, I just don’t think it is practical.

    2. Heat – Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t PETN and RDX burn hotter than C4? A lot hotter?

    Remember, half the job is disposing of the trusses, otherwise they would have had 40,000+ of them strown all over the place, being blown out the sides of the tower as the demo progressed.

    You see, that’s what Jones has been misidentifying as “thermite” all this time; the trusses. Those “iron rich spheres” are actually the HDLA steel trusses that were melted by the HE they used. The same HE they used to pulberise the floors also melted the trusses and a vast majority of the floorpans in a flash.

    I don’t think C4 could do that. Then again, it might. I know it has a very high brisance, I just wonder about it’s heat.

    3. Jones is now supposedly looking into C4 as well. It would seem, with all his attention over the years being spent looking at “nanothermite” “superthermite” “thermate”… ect… it would seem that he seems determined to keep our attention in the rhelm of the deep, dark, secret, military operations.

    I don’t buy it.

    If we know one thing about this crew, it’s that they privatize everything. Not only that, but they brought in the leading expert in the field of explosive demolition to “clean up” the site the day after the demo.

    Is that what you would do if you just had the military demo a building in stealth? Of course not. That man would be the only person on the planet who could identify anything that wasn’t right. He would know almost immediately if it was a controlled demo. So the only reason you would bring him in, is if he already knew what was going on.

    And that takes me back to a point I made earlier… these guys aren’t going to play around with stuff that they don’t normally use in explosive demolitions. Too much at stake.

    For those reasons, and maybe a few others, I don’t think it was C4… at least not the primary HE used in the floor systems, which was the vast majority of the explosives used in a demo like this one.

    I think they ran Primaline 85 up inside the floor systems under the floor pans or inside the prefabricated electrical ducts.

    They could have easily disguised the work as a security cabling upgrade (which we know they were doing prior to the demolition) and if someone even looded up inside there, they wouldn’t know what it was looking right at it.

    The Primaline (like most det cords) uses PETN. The Primaline 85 uses 57 pounds of the stuff per 1,000 feet of cord. Each run on the floor systems would have been just under 200 feet, so you figure 5 lengths per side per floor, and you have just over 200 lbs of PETN per floor evenly distributed over the area of the floor. Since it burns at a rate of about 8,000 meters per second, and if you have seperate ignition devices per run, each floor could be completely demoed in about 1/20th of a second or so; which comes into play when you consider that they were taking out about 10 floors per second during the final demo process.

    Anyway, we need to test for the trace residual elements of ALL HE… including (but not limited to… as Jones is attempting to pass off) C4.

  37. willyloman wrote:
    “But I have a hard time with C4 as the primary HE being used to pulverized the floors and dispose of the floor trusses. Heres why;”

    “1. Dispersal – C4, as you know, would have to be placed in many locations inside the floor system up under the steel floor pan. In order to get the floors to break into dust like they did, as opposed to just breaking it up like a sheet of peanut brittle, they would have to put huge amount of small charges all over the underside of that steel floor pan.”

    You are absolutely correct. But the C4, all of it was placed at construction by just pouring it into the corrugations of the floor. The welds on the trusses would be torn apart, the steel corrugated panels ripped apart an the concrete pulverized.

    Most importantly the core was not steel core columns, and your page on Deets, Roberts, gage and Hoffman is really important to understanding the connections between FEMA and gage et al. or what is percieved as public support for FEMA aiding their deception.

  38. The core was a cast concrete rectangular tube surrounded with 24 of the largest true, full length continuous steel columns. What is seen in the core are “elevator guide rail support steel.

    I detail the FEMAdeception on this page,

    http://algoxy.com/conc/fema_deception.html

    The demo here,

    http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11demolitionexplained.html

    and the concrete core is linked at the bottom. The site is extensive with a page on gage and jones and some of the web forums, to show how the FEMA deception gets carried to the public. Your info nearly completes the loop. Good work!

  39. Hello Chris;

    “…the C4, all of it was placed at construction by just pouring it into the corrugations of the floor…”

    That’s an interesting hypothesis, however there are several problems with it.

    The first is that the floor pans were corrugated for a reason. The conrete when poured into the floor system, hardens with the steel not just on top of it. This reduces the slipage between the steel and the concrete. That is an important factor in the overall stiffness of the floors, affecting their strength and lateral movement. The lateral movement comes into play as the winds outside the building apply force in one direction or the other. In short, without the stiffness in the floorsystems, the buildings would not have remained standing in high winds, so they never would have done that.

    The second thing that jumps to mind is the highly improbable notion that someone would set any kind of charges in the buildings at the time of construction. This is something that has been brought up before, and for obvious reasons it is beyond highly unlikely.

    Some people think that they can solve the problem of the stealth of the installation of the demolition equipment by suggesting it was done at the time of construction. This didn’t happen. You don’t build buildings with self destruct systems already in place “just in case” you have to demo it by stealth sometime in the future.

    The C4 was not laid into the floor system at the time of construction. C4 is not the most stable of HE in the first place and besides that, there have been numberous remodels and upgrades over the years that required drilling and cutting into the floor systems.

    Obviously that could cause serious problems with C4 in your floor.

    The trick here is, to find something that the demo industry uses and is familiar with, that could possibly be installed right in front of someone without them being suspicious and then at the same time, have enough explosive power to do the job.

    Det cord certainly fits that bill.

    And it would explain why no one has ever tested for the residual trace elements of high explosives.

    not even Steven Jones.

    As far as the core construction is concerned. I have heard that before, that the core was poured concrete. It just doesn’t jive with my inspection of the released architectural drawings and the photographs I have seen of the construction process.

    Plus, if you slow down the demolition videos, in many of them, toward the end of the process, you can clearly see the core columns still standing for a second or two before they just “fall apart” as well.

    I will check out the links you provide, and I am interested in what you offer here.

  40. Hello Willy,

    I read what you write considering the floors and adhesion to the concrete.

    “The first is that the floor pans were corrugated for a reason. The conrete when poured into the floor system, hardens with the steel not just on top of it. This reduces the slipage between the steel and the concrete. That is an important factor in the overall stiffness of the floors, affecting their strength and lateral movement. The lateral movement comes into play as the winds outside the building apply force in one direction or the other. In short, without the stiffness in the floorsystems, the buildings would not have remained standing in high winds, so they never would have done that.”

    Don’t know if you can handle communicating with Phil Jayhan, we have out differences but manage to remain left brain with it. Phil remembers hearing somewhere, which is okay with me because I saw 16mm film of it in the 1990 PBS documentary “The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers”, now disappeared, that floors were forcefully evacuated of workers without notice.

    In the documentary the narration stated that after sandblasting the corrugated steel panels crews were forced to leave floors and the PA security people went to work. It was a big issue with the concrete contractor who threatened to sue for the lost wages why his crew sat doing nothing.
    From my experience the concrete contact with the steel if down to gray metal is a surprisingly good bond, so if only the bottom of the 2 corrugations adjacent on 2 foot centers were cover with C4, there would be no real loss of adhesive area.

    The other aspect is that the truss beams under the panels were what fastened to the spandrel plates and floor beams were what absorbed the pressure and tension exerted on the diaphragms of the floors. That was where the rubber dampers were. Which actually not only made the building quiet but preserved the bond between concrete and floor by eliminating all sharp shocks against shocks.

  41. Willy Loman wrote:
    “The second thing that jumps to mind is the highly improbable notion that someone would set any kind of charges in the buildings at the time of construction. This is something that has been brought up before, and for obvious reasons it is beyond highly unlikely.”

    Of course probability is challenged, however, 2, 1,350 foot towers to the ground in 20 seconds is more improbable in my mind. That perception is based in a fairly well developed engineering sense, albeit intuitive, (I was a driller for a blaster in the 1980’s and studied various texts on blasting, picked ex-seals brains etc.) that what happened was a completely engineered event. It was far too consistent and uniform to be explosives applied to an existing structure.

    The astounding uniformity belies ANY blast I’ve ever seen, without exception. I term the towers, “Precision engineered concrete containers for high explosives in the shapes of architectural elements”.

    All that is required is secrecy. JFK warned us about that after Ike warned us of the military industrial complex. I’ve edited these down. This was but 3 years before construction.

    [audio src="http://algoxy.com/psych/audio/military_eisenhower1_17_61.mp3" /]
    [audio src="http://algoxy.com/psych/audio/jfk_secrecy.mp3" /]

  42. Willy Loman wrote:
    “Some people think that they can solve the problem of the stealth of the installation of the demolition equipment by suggesting it was done at the time of construction. This didn’t happen. You don’t build buildings with self destruct systems already in place “just in case” you have to demo it by stealth sometime in the future.

    The C4 was not laid into the floor system at the time of construction. C4 is not the most stable of HE in the first place and besides that, there have been numberous remodels and upgrades over the years that required drilling and cutting into the floor systems.”

    You are correct, the “just in case” scenario does not justify the efforts and risk. This was done for exactly the purposes it has been used for. Our government has been infiltrated since 1950.

    Beyond the explosive circuits of the floors, there was the concrete core walls, where the rebar was encapsulated and preserved just as the floors were.

    C/4 SAFETY
    “Safety of C4

    http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm

    http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,5298306%255E23590,00.html

    “C4 resembles white, uncooked pastry or bread dough, and can be kneaded and moulded into any shape in total safety,” said Mark Ribband, head of a British company that manufactures this explosive.

    “You can even shoot bullets in it. It needs a detonator to make it explode,” he said.”

    C/4 is very safe. I’m sure that all drilling in the floors was very carefully controlled.

    Here rebar that was exposed to a sudden harsh winter wherein its C4 coating (referred to in the lost video “special, anti corrosion, anti vibration coating” lost its explosive viability. This was documented in the 1990 video and a work shutdown pending the decision to remove concrete core walls cast around the non viable “protective coating” went 3 days before it was decided to be too costly and time prohibitive to re do the wall.

    Other freshly coated rebar was tied on horizontally, then more layers of smaller, which did detonate and removed the concrete on 9-11 to leave the high tensile steel rebar standing as we see here.

  43. Willy Loman wrote:
    “Det cord certainly fits that bill.

    And it would explain why no one has ever tested for the residual trace elements of high explosives.

    not even Steven Jones.”

    As far as I can tell, det cord would have to be used to jumper with delays between sections of rebar that were stripped of the coating to interupt the vertical circuit via access through ports (info from the 1990 documentary, “to inspect rebar”) that match the slope angle seen in this video with opposing corners low and 90 degrees from them opposing corners high. A flattened “v” shape. The floors could be sequenced and timed to follow that and avoid disturbance to interior initiation systems having fixed positions and sequence. They did not know the sequence they would use when they built to towers.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5860825099435530591&q=5860825099435530591&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

    I calc that 75 ms between floors and 300 ms between 40 foot tiers of concrete pour, with their access ports to rebar, slightly exceed free fall. Note they very well contained blasts. Uniform, optimum containment and acceleration of particulate slowing high pressure gas expansions.

    BTW, there were news casts talking about delays of employees of business in the Towers just before the silverstein lease started. People working on lower floors had to go over their destination then back down to get tot heir floors making long lines 3 times a day.

  44. Willy Loman wrote:
    “As far as the core construction is concerned. I have heard that before, that the core was poured concrete. It just doesn’t jive with my inspection of the released architectural drawings and the photographs I have seen of the construction process.”

    On the page here,

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/strange-bedfellows-ae911truth-the-drone-industry-and-dwain-deets/

    I left a comment/compliment on the work done their connecting Deets to Roberts to Hoffman to gage, to jones to silverstein. The only plans that exist or us now are preliminary plans made by Robertson to present the concept of the towers to Yamasaki. They are hopelessly incomplete. The titles are freehand in pencil! Digital anomalies from photoshopping are found in the revision tables that were added to the scans to make them appear as final drawings.

    Willy Loman wrote:
    “Plus, if you slow down the demolition videos, in many of them, toward the end of the process, you can clearly see the core columns still standing for a second or two before they just “fall apart” as well.

    I will check out the links you provide, and I am interested in what you offer here.”

    I think I know which video you mention. What is shown, and it is not easy to see, are elevator guide rails falling outside the core walls with huge chunks of concrete stuck to them. If so, there are frames enlarged and enhanced that someone sent to me trying to prove “steel core columns”. When I pointed out the bulbous pieces of concrete clinging to them they realized that what they were seeing really cannot be interpreted as seeing columns in the core area. Columns falling around the core area, is more like it.

    http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html#anchor%20guiderailsfall

    Here is a very clear animated .gif of some frames of another video. This was found and created by someone following a message board battle at breakfornews.com, which it turns out is doing what it accuses so many of. Cointelpro. I’m finding this quite typical of the online post 9-11 psyops/disinformation campaign.

    After discovering that the only core that can actually be evidenced is the concrete core, they made this video.

  45. Chris;

    “…what happened was a completely engineered event. It was far too consistent and uniform to be explosives applied to an existing structure.”

    Controlled explosive demolition is an “engineered event”. It takes months of planning, years of experience, several advanced degrees, and then some very precise execution of the installation of the explosives as well as computers these days to actually run the ignition sequences.

    In fact, there are 3d computer programs that they use to do it as well.

    Another thing you should consider…. what is the shelf life of C4? Do you know? Do you think C4 would sit for 30 years and still be stable enough to count on?

  46. willyloman wrote
    “.Chris;
    ..what happened was a completely engineered event. It was far too consistent and uniform to be explosives applied to an existing structure.”

    Controlled explosive demolition is an “engineered event”. It takes months of planning, years of experience, several advanced degrees, and then some very precise execution of the installation of the explosives as well as computers these days to actually run the ignition sequences.”

    Hmmmm, my points about containment and distribution exclude the possibility of installation, something you left out.

    Recall, I’m a driller. I know exactly what it takes to make the holes to place the charges that are needed, where they are needed as often as they are needed.

    This tool is needed for about 6,500 man hours to distribute the explosives in a way to do what was done.

    Every one of those hours would need a 350 CFM diesel compressor running at full throttle. There is not other way, period. That is JUST the core, not even the floors. Oops, we did not take into account the high tensile steel rebar in the concrete core walls. Do you know what that does to a carbide insert bit?

    Because the floors are only 5″ thick average you have to have a small hole every 2 feet in all directions. A 15 LB electric hammer drill will work for those in up to about 3 times that many man hours.

    This makes the tiny pieces. Less holes = bigger pieces, more un contained “rifle shot” type chunks leaving at 10kfps.

    I hope you are getting the picture. I can read the blast wave and tell you that the containment is perfect and distribution far more complete than is possible to achieve by drilling. Check this, …… it is perfection in explosive expansion and I can show you in the shapes of the blast wave where the explosives were.

    http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11corexplosions.html#anchor1410743

    We should focus on the structure. If there is no independently verified evidence for the steel core columns, give up on them. Supporting such is supporting the impossible to obscure the possible.

    willyloman wrote
    “Another thing you should consider…. what is the shelf life of C4? Do you know? Do you think C4 would sit for 30 years and still be stable enough to count on?”

    It’s on my site which has been recently revised.

    http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11demolitionexplained.html#anchor1152281

    ” C4 shelf life of 10 years from an explosives manufacturer

    http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm

    MilSpec: MIL-C-45010A
    UK HSE Serial number: 32-A-68450
    RDX content: 91 ± 1%
    Polyisobutylene plasticiser: 9 ± 1%
    Moisture: 0.1% max
    Velocity of Detonation: 8092 ± 26 m/s
    Density: 1.63 g/cm3
    Colour: Nominally white
    TNT equivalence: 118%
    Chemical marking for detection: Marked
    Shelf life: At least 10 years under good conditions”

    Ten years shelf with the 12mil mylar package the manufacturer provides. Encapsulated in a foot or so of concrete will preserve it indefinitely.

    It doesn’t become unstable, it loses it explosive qualities with evaporation and oxidization.

  47. Chris;

    Is it not true that in the demolition industry small concrete floor sections can be broken up with det cord? And if that is the case, is it not possible that in this very non-standard application, that a higher load of det cord could have been used to pulverize these floors if that cord were say, doubled up, and then run inside the already existing cable chases that were built into the floor systems? Say you ran two Primaline 85’s through each; that would be approximately 114 lbs of PETN per 1000 feet of cord length. That’s a lot of det cord.

  48. willyloman wrote:

    “Chris;
    Is it not true that in the demolition industry small concrete floor sections can be broken up with det cord? And if that is the case, is it not possible that in this very non-standard application, that a higher load of det cord could have been used to pulverize these floors if that cord were say, doubled up, and then run inside the already existing cable chases that were built into the floor systems? Say you ran two Primaline 85’s through each; that would be approximately 114 lbs of PETN per 1000 feet of cord length. That’s a lot of det cord.”

    The cable chases are not in the floor, they are over the suspended ceilings. Pulverizing concrete requires containment, pressures must build up.

    Even conduit in the floor is not distributed anywhere near enough.

    The floors are not that important to the demolition we try to understand. The concrete core is because it was a load bearing structural element. Of course it is clear the the floors blew out the perimeter panels which bore 50% of the weight.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5860825099435530591&q=5860825099435530591&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

    But, it is also clear that the demo progessed in 2 phases. Fist the floors removed, which left the WTC 2 concrete core standing with all steel gone.

    WHY, is my sight the only site that uses that image? Or the next one that shows the west concrete shear wall of WTC 1. The shot looks south along the line of the wall and shows the wall in an end view.

    Containment is everything when blasting mineral materials. Free fall must be explained. Steel core columns are never seen in the core area on 9-11. An empty core, or one surounded with concrete walls is all that is seen.

  49. Why are you the only one using these photos? Because these exist, Chris…

    and literally hundreds and hundreds of others that show the construction process of the Twin Towers, Chris.. That is why.

    The core of the Towers were constructed of HDLA steel, structural A-36 steel columns… some as big as 5′ x 3′ with 6″ thick steel. Not only have I determined this from a careful study of the contruction plans, but also from reading testimony from engineers and steel workers on site, and of course the many and various photos and even films of their construction.

    But it is important that we all keep searching though. We all keep our investigations ongoing. I could always be wrong. I even voted for a Clinton way back when. I was wrong then… could happen again.

    scott

  50. Ahhhh, the mechanism of the FEMA lie. Misrepresentation of elevator guide rail support steel. Here is a closer and clearer photo of WTC 2 core at about 5 floors up.

    Left and right of the central crane are guide rail support steel with “butt plates” on their tops. “Butt plates” at the 5th floor show that the steel in the center of the core is joined too weakly to be core columns. Core columns must have a 100% fillet weld joining them, such as this diagram showing a deep fillet weld on an “I” beam.

    What I’ve done is explained why NO ONE can find an image from 9-11 showing steel core columns in the core. The steel in the core was too weakly joined to withstand any of the demo and were supported laterally by short braces connecting into the concrete core walls.

    Here is an an animated image of the east concrete core wall of WTC 1 toppling into the empty core behind it.

  51. Only 9-11 images of the steel core columns can be acceptable because the perpetrators of the infiltrated US government took, filtered all the construction photos of those that showed concrete. Which wasn’t difficult because the core was 60 feet back from the perimeter or under false floors installed to allow elevator installation crews to walk around an align the elevator guide rail support steel. The concrete core was very difficult to get a good picture of. There were very few.

    In fact, in the 2 hour documentary I viewed, the narration underlined the difficulty and consolidated intentionally all of the good photos they had showing rebar, forms and the tops of heavy rock aggregates of the core walls. There were not even 10 good ones. The best was of the same footage that the 1983 “Building the World trade center” was made from. The doc I saw, “The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers” showed open contempt for the 1983 production by the PA and noted it seriously misrepresented the structure by using the term “core columns”.

    Dr. Ron Larsen and a former Marine major conducted a search for the video and found signs in library records and a copy, which was intercepted 3 times. Here is an excerpt from his web radio show in 2007 that I co hosted where he updates the search.

    [audio src="http://algoxy.com/psych/audio/rl-cb6-27-07pbs.doc_1-2.mp3" /]

    The reason that none of the 9-11 site do not use this image,

    is because they do not understand it, …….. or, they are working to promote the FEMA deception.

    Recall, Leslie Robertson was interviewed 2 days after 9-11 and the resulting article in Newsweek identifies a concrete core.

    =http://web.archive.org/web/20040807085840/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/

    “Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.”

    This is independently verified evidence, NOT depending on misrepresentations invented by others.

  52. This one and the one following it confirm the FEMA deception of steel core columns and the concrete core. This is the west concrete shear wall of WTC 1 concrete core looking south along it with the spire, one of 24 huge box columns that did exist, all having 100% deep fillet welds on all 4 sides. Left of the structural steel of the spire is the end view of the massive concrete wall. To the left of it is the empty core area.

    Then, this one shows the rebar of the concrete wall that was inside and below the spire of the north wall adjacent to the above wall. this is immediately after the spire went down.

    There is absolutely no explanation for those very fine elements allowing light to pass between them other than rebar. The “Engineering and Construction of the Twin towers” spent a good bit of time talking about the 3″ custom order rebar (from DOD steel mills) that was high tensile.

    If I ever saw 50 or so sticks of 3″ rebar standing free at 100 + feet, near plumb, that is it. There is absolutely no other explanation for that being in the photo and it is totally consistent with all of the other “independently verified evidence” of the concrete core

    Oly images from 9-11 showing steel core columns inthe core area are accepted as evidence because the steel core had to have been strong enough to stand IF it existed. I know, and show it did not.

  53. willyloman, on December 3rd, 2009 at 10:11 pm Said:

    “Why are you the only one using these photos? Because these exist, Chris…”

    Perhaps you a searching for images of steel core columns standing in the core area on 9-11. Perhaps you have realized that believing in the steel core columns is believing in the official story.

    Believing in the steel core columns relates directly to the major event of 3,000 murdered in 20 seconds. The perpetrators would try to promote through their post 9-11 disinformation psyops that those that believe in the official story relating to planes are promoting the official story. Therefore the “no planes theory” was propagated and promoted by them. That was very bad for the truth movement.

    Logic tells us that 2, 1.350 foot towers cannot go to the ground identically in 20 seconds, and that planes can have nothing to do with it when it is as perfect and uniform as it was.

    Therefore a deception relating directly to the structure is more logical than any other kind of deception. A deception that conceals the placement of explosive and enables instant free fall is more functional and logical than any other kind.

    Undoubtedly many people are deceived by FEMA. When quasi leaders will not use reason and evidence which enables explanation for placement and instant free fall, something is very wrong.

    No quasi leader of 9-11, when challenged to do so, has ever defined a feasible method of cutting 47 steel core columns enough times to make them disappear from ALL 9-11 images and enable free fall. Calculate the total length of core column by dividing the average length of columns at ground zero and you end up with 1,500 or so cuts. Gage just says, “It was done”. Frank greening, who I believe is sincere, tried by saying, “Elevators were stopped and access to the core columns was gained to set charges”. He did better than any, but still, not good enough. That might explain the columns inside the core, but what about the inner frame of the outer steel floor supporting structure? There were 24 of those. They were the ones that really existed as full length continuous steel box columns. He stopped when trying to explain that.

    I am the only one using these images.



    Because the leadership of the 9-11 truth movement was positioned by the perpetrators and those people are directed to NOT attempt to use or not display them. There is no other logical conclusion, particularly when guiliani took the WTC documents containing the plans enabling FEMA to misrepresent the structure to NIST. SIlversteins “leak” of the scanned blueprints to the quasi leaders, completes the ruse.

    Your good work exposes connections between gage, hoffman, roberts, and deets that completes the connections which continue to support the FEMA deception in the public movement for truth.

    http://algoxy.com/conc/fema_deception.html

    We hear very well contained explosions

  54. “Just look at him. He’s a weasel.”

    Just look at you. You’re a cunt.

  55. “Just look at him. He’s a weasel.”

    Yes indeed. Whereas you are a fine and superior specimen of Homo Sapien. The kind of man Hitler wanted to fill the world with no doubt.

    What’s it like being a member of the ‘master race’? Do you guys still dress up in those uniforms and walk silly?

  56. ah, I see… so anyone who questions your great “hero” is automatically a Nazi?

    I do however like your offhanded reference the the Monty Python skit “The Ministry of Silly Walks”… which I thought was very funny.

    If you wish to disagree with any substanitive material, that input is welcomed and encouraged.

    If all you have are vulgar and offensive comments, and pointless straw man comparisons to the Nazis, then it is not.

  57. melter,

    Willy is correct, Harrit is a wease. As far as I can tell seeking details on theis mysterious substance “nano” thermite, I’ve not found anything that indicates it is a high explosive. There are no real performance specifications for it, even as a super fast incendiary.

    Here is an image from the deaprtment of navy of a response to a FOIA request for data on weapons type/grade nano.

    They know nothing of it.

    In my searching, right after the nano bullet showed up, painted on the towers to make them invisible, so the “No planers” had matcthing buildings, I found only patent applications for an artillery fuze and a rifle cartridge propellent.

    Forget specifications for high explosive aspects of nano. There are none. Weasy harrit acts like its somthing science is well aware of. Good thing he’s in Europe where no one can quiz him further who is on the Continent of secret methods of mass murder.

    I looked into any experimentation that may have been done and found this. “Making super thermite”

    From my reading, the very fast propagation of flame was only attained while under the influence of an electrostatic magnetic field.

    Weasels strike again with total BS, misinformation working to rip off America for its Constitution and justice.

    http://algoxy.com/images2/Making_Super_Thermite.pdf

  58. Let’s just face a few simple facts.

    Skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up. They must also sway in the wind. The people who design skyscrapers MUST figure out how much steel and how much concrete they are going to put on every level before they even dig the hole for the foundation.

    After EIGHT YEARS why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of WTCs 1&2? The NIST report does not even specify the TOTAL for the concrete. The total for the steel is in three places. So even if the planes did it that 10,000 page report is CRAP!

    Conspiracies are irrelevant. The Truth Movement should be marching on all of the engineering schools in the country.

    Watch that Purdue simulation. If a 150 ton airliner crashes near the top of a skyscraper at 440 mph isn’t the building going to sway? Didn’t the survivors report the building “moving like a wave”? So why do the core columns in the Purdue video remain perfectly still as the plane comes in?

    That is the trouble with computer simulations. If they are good, they are very good. But if they have a defect either accidental or deliberate they can be REALLY STUPID once you figure out the flaws.

    The distributions of steel and concrete are going to affect the sway of a skyscraper whether it is from the wind or an airliner.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    How much does one complete floor assembly weigh?

    You know those square donut floor slabs? They were 205 ft square with a rectangular hole for the core. There was a steel rebar mesh embedded in the concrete which was poured onto corrugated steel pans which were supported by 35 and 60 foot trusses. There has been talk about those things pancaking on each other for years.

    But has anyone ever said what the whole thing weighed? Why haven’t we seen that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS? The concrete alone is easy to compute, about 601 tons. But the concrete could not be separated from the entire assembly, the upper knuckles of the trusses were embedded into the concrete. So what did the whole thing weigh and why haven’t the EXPERTS been mentioning that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS?

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    So why hasn’t Richard Gage and his buddies produced a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC? How much computing power do they have now, compared to the early 1960s when the buildings were designed? I asked Gage about that in May of 2008 at Chicago Circle Campus and he got a surprised look on his face and gave me this LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. Gravity hasn’t changed since the 1960s. They should be able to come up with some reasonable numbers.

  59. psikeyhackr wrote:
    “There was a steel rebar mesh embedded in the concrete which was poured onto corrugated steel pans”

    Only on 10 floors because lightweight concrete does not have the strength to grip rebar effectively. Welded steel mesh is used. Here is the concrete schedule for WTC 1 for the floors. Only where “hard stone” concrete is used will you find rebar.

    The 1990 PBS documentary (missing), “The Enigneering and Construction of the Twin Towers” explained that the structural design needed a number of maximum strength floors to act as diaphrams evenly distributed ove rhte towers height. Those ten floors with hard stone concrete represent those, mostly. The others are mechanical floors.

    In a tower of the height of th Twins, sway is a serious enemy. The hat truss worked with the concrete core by being a dissimilar uncompressable material that the hat truss pivoted on trnasferring sway into reversed compression and tension through the moment frames.

    Oscillation from sway and torsion would have destroyed the Towers with the first 110 MPH wind that came along if they had steel core columns. They survived 3.

    Steel reinforced concrete does flex a small amount. With high tensile steel rebar it becomes very resilient to the forces that cause flex, without flexing much.

  60. February 18, 2010 filing at United States District Court pursuant to United States Code, Title 18, part I, chapter 115, §2382. Misprision of treason.

    This filing is freely provided for citizens to customize to their own name for filing. Parts relating to affidavits and declarations can be changed for accuracy.

    The local court rules do not accommodate direct information to judges. All information to judges must have a case file number. In order to fit into the filing format a standard form of pleading must be followed with a face page and caption that is appropriately structured. This is for filing criminally and since it is Title 18, the intent seems clearly to enable anyone with allegiance to the United States to present it to a judge.

  61. And you’re professor of chemistry of good standing of which well known and respected Western European university?

    And of course, you also spent two years with eight (8) other scientists at the university you are teaching chemistry, correct?

    And the above essay, and your professional findings have been peer reviewed also, as well, correct?

  62. according to your logic, “Sceptic”, you have no business questioning the official conspiracy theory, do you? You aren’t a military intelligence expert are you? You aren’t a structural engineer are you? So who are you to question the 911 Commission’s findings or NIST’s?

    Can’t have it both ways “Sceptic”. If we can use our heads and challenge the logic and the evidence of the “official story” of 911, we can (and should) do the same when self proclaimed “leaders” of our movement offer flawed evidence.

    If it’s good to be skeptical of our government’s lies, then we must also remember to not accept blindly those who just happen to preach something we WANT to believe.

    Harrit is a distraction. The evidence is there… it just isn’t magical pyrotechnic pixie dust.

  63. […] anyone want to join in on the conversation? We are having an interesting chat on the comments section… jump right in […]

  64. My six penneth on this, if one were to hit a very tall building, it’s going to vibrate like a guitar string. First thing, forces will travel to the top capping truss and the ground floor. This will cause quite a bit of damage, like the reported tile springing at ground level. The building itself will find nodes for this vibration at various floor trusses.

    The vibration is damped, and this is done by the viscoelastic dampers attached to the bottom of the floor trusses and curtain wall.

    These were not considered to be load bearing, and so were not destructively tested. We have two steel beams, glued together with a pad of non newtonian substance “rubber.” They’re not ordinary rubber, think more along the lines of silly putty. It’s also sulfur based, and heat is stored at the sulfur bonds. These things have been vibrating for the best part of an hour. It’s actually when they start to cool down that they can suddenly release energy. The stuff they are made from is called Thiokol and it is used in solid propellant rockets.

  65. Oh yeah, I thought I’d put this up as well. Do read the entire thread and note the dates when this discussion took place. http://www.designcommunity.com/discussion/7551.html

  66. […] of power to do something. Won't you join us in looking for the answers? If not, then you need to take the advice found in one of the comments on your article. "The way you dispute a juried paper with solid science is to produce another juried paper […]

  67. The main problem is most people develop an emotional attachment to their own perceived “most likely” hypothesis of reality, in this case, the events of 9/11. So it’s virtually impossible to logically change their mind, because it’s not a real rational belief, but rather an emotional belief, that tries to sustain itself with apparent rational elements from a supposed reality. If you KNOW the buildings came down because of alien laser beams, if you KNOW Zionists are responsible for the attacks, if you KNOW the government did it, if you KNOW there were explosives in the buildings, etc.; then, there’s no debate for TRUTH really, you already have your mind set, and what you’re after is only “converting people” to your TRUTH. This is exactly like religion. No amount of evidence will be sufficient to convince anyone with this type of mindset that they’re wrong. If there’s evidence that debunks a “theory” that one is already emotionally attached to, it can easily be said this evidence is manufactured. If it’s video, then the video was edited, it was special high power CGI effects. If it’s elaborated calculations of specialists, they are working under threats of evil power. If it’s witness testimony, they’re either lying, mistaken or under pressure of evil power.
    So 9/11 has become a religion in itself. It’s all about belief. You believe whatever you like best, and there’s plenty of LACK OF EVIDENCE of otherwise to back up your belief, forever.

  68. Well, that’s not necessarily true Hellraiser

    about 6 years ago I myself was emotionally committed to a version of the 9/11 story and it was pretty much the official one. I got in a heated argument with a friend and neighbor and then I set out to prove her wrong by doing my own investigation of the research. After about 6 months of looking primarily at the official evidence, I came to the understanding that I had been wrong and that there was something very wrong with the official story and something very wrong with how certain elements tried to support it.

    Just like the fact that there is no hard evidence to support the idea that bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11, the same is true for the official story of how those buildings came down. What we saw was not a gravitational collapse by any means, and the story of Building 7 is impossible at best.

    Now, you can twist that logic around all you like and claim that lack of evidence proves the official story if that is what turns you on, but here, with me, evidence is important still. This ain’t 1984

  69. As I mentioned in my post just before these last two posts, there needs to be a look taken at the role played by the viscoelastic dampers, attached to the floor trusses of the Twin Towers.

    There is a conspiracy there but it’s your bog standard tawdry one of misdirection. The dampers were never treated as being potentially load bearing, so they were never destructively tested.

    People who didn’t want them looked at, were the owners, the insurers and 3M, the company that made the dampers.

  70. I don’t think the dampeners cause Building 7 to fall into it’s own footprint at near freefall acceleration. And I don’t think the dampeners melted the filing cabinets, fire doors, door knobs, or the rubber stocks of the police officers guns. I also don’t think the dampeners cause the “combustion related” melting of steel and plastics that the RJ Lee Group discovered back in 2005. And I seriously doubt the dampeners ejected steel beams (weighing up to 10 tons) 600 feet away from the buildings.

    talk about misdirection

  71. “Dampeners”?

    Dr. Harrit…you have fallen precipitously in my eyes.

  72. There were dampeners attached to the trusses as I detailed in my own drawings of the floor sections of the Twin Towers, but they were not structural, which is why they were never tested as structural components of the floor system. The trusses were bolted and then welded into place. The dampeners dealt with lateral force energy, not vertical. They were there to help the towers dissipate lateral movement caused by wind. They helped allow the structure to sway back and forth rather than stand rigid which actually helped them dissipate the energy of the planes crashing into the side of the towers. This guy’s assumption that somehow they stored that energy and then heated up and failed due to that energy either displays his complete lack of understanding of physics or his assumption that we don’t understand it. It’s one or the other.

  73. Scott? You’ve acquitted yourself quite admirably in the comments sections, and I appreciate the forum you’ve provided.

    Your point is also crystal clear – maybe we can get some action before ten years pass by.

  74. Thanks for your explanation.

    Sorry for what may have looked like a hit-and-run…but I’ve been hopping around this postings for the last hour or so…I just watched the A&E special on RFK’s murder, and it’s got my blood boiling.

    Of course, “dampeners”…I know all about the mechanics of tall buildings – just never had a name for the elasticity mechanism.

    I try to explain to the waterheads out there, that at the elevation that the Twin Towers used to occupy, they were hit CONSTANTLY by hurricane-force winds…and that the impact of the airplanes (and that is by no means absolute) was not only negligible; they were accounted for in their construction.

    I’m happier every day for having found your blog.

  75. The viscoelastic dampers, an elastomer not a rubber, are non newtonian substances. The physics of their behavior is hugely interesting and complex. They store heat in there sulphur bonds, and I do recall that sulphur was remarked on.

    Could they catapult ten tonne steel sections great distances? Yes they could. Is thiokol used as a solid fuel missile propellant? Yes it is.

    I’ve no axe to grind about this, i just ask why so little thought has been given to these things. Suit yourself.

  76. wait a minute…. wait a minute… are you trying to say that these dampeners basically acted like high explosives and blew the building apart when heated? Is that what you’re trying to say Bob? Cus you know, I kinda figured that is what you were trying to say in your earlier comment, but I didn’t think that could have possibly been what you were saying. Is that what you are saying?

  77. Bob…you wrote:

    “The viscoelastic dampers, an elastomer not a rubber, are non newtonian substances. The physics of their behavior is hugely interesting and complex. They store heat in there sulphur bonds, and I do recall that sulphur was remarked on.

    Could they catapult ten tonne steel sections great distances? Yes they could. Is thiokol used as a solid fuel missile propellant? Yes it is.”

    I won’t pretend that I can parse out the chemistry or physics of these actions/reactions in my head, but I will posit that even if these reactions are POSSIBLE, in regards to what happened and how it happened almost ten years ago…is it PROBABLE?

    Let’s go back to the Murrah Building and the Ryder truck bomb, and the IMPOSSIBILITY of the RTB being able to do any such damage to the Murrah Building, as General Ben Partin points out.

    Make a tin-foil box and get three cardboard tubes (paper towel spindles), and arrange them in much the fashion of the truck bomb sitting in front of the Murrah Building, with the three tubes representing the one front column and two rear columns (a simplification) of the support columns within the building.

    Now, hopefully, you’ve had the foresight to add an M-80 to the box representing the RTB. Light it, and take cover.

    Two things should immediately come to light:

    First…the front column should take the most damage, considering its proximity to the explosion; but we were told exactly the opposite in regards to what damage had been done to the support structure within the Murrah Building.

    Second…in the actual explosion…if it was even possible that a truck bomb could have done the damage purported, there should have been a huge crater dug out in the street with a rough diameter to the proximity of the face of the Murrah Building…not exact, by any means, but to some degree. Otherwise, you’re affording the properties of what would be considered a “shaped charge” to a truck bomb.

    It’s laughable that Americans have swallowed this hogwash for this bloody long.

  78. Vincent

    The Twin Towers were a marvel of engineering and design. They did not put highly explosive and unstable materials in the buildings as dampeners. They tend to take FIRE into consideration when building structures like these. They also happened to take into consideration plane crash impacts and burning jet fuel as well.

  79. Yes and no, I would argue that the buildings essentially unbuilt themselves. Most of the dampers would have exploded like suddenly released elastic bands. They would literally unzip floors and push columns out of the vertical as they did so.

  80. well, that’s one way of looking at physics.

  81. An additional anecdote: remember the 1993 attack on the WTC? TWELVE INCHES made all the difference, ladies and gentlemen.

  82. Bob Turner, on June 11, 2011 at 2:38 pm said:

    “Yes and no, I would argue that the buildings essentially unbuilt themselves. Most of the dampers would have exploded like suddenly released elastic bands. They would literally unzip floors and push columns out of the vertical as they did so.”

    Bob…I don’t even want you opening cans of beer for me, much less being involved in the erection of any structures.

  83. I was not directing my comment to any specific person. Also, as you can see I didn’t say “all people”, but “most people”. I never said lack of evidence of otherwise PROVES the official story. But most Truthers go like this: “there’s no evidence of plane debris at the pentagon THEREFORE it was obviously a missile”. Or “there was never a steel building that collapsed due to fire THEREFORE there were bombs in those buildings”. It’s just the most common line of argumentation out there, as far as I’ve seen. I’m not saying the official story is THE TRUTH. But the official explanation is far more reasonable than theories like “there were no planes, they were CGI effects done by a BBC CNN conspiration with the US government”. Or the buildings were built already with explosives within, so that eventually one day they could be brought downfor no real good reason. Or that the planes were hijacked by government agents who took it to some military desert facility, who then murdered all the passenger and destroyed the planes, so they could attack the WTC and the pentagon with bombs. Seriously?… That all sounds like anywhere close to reasonable to anyone really? But a group of extremist religious from the middle east hijack some planes inside the USA is TOO FAR FETCHED!
    ok…

  84. Hi Hellraiser, we have a criminal conspiracy to fly commercial aircraft into high profile targets in the united States. There’s a lot we don’t know about that, and probably never will. A lot of the world of spookdom has to do with insider trading. European Intel agencies alerted the U.S. that there was a lot of futures buying in airline stock going on (think time zones). Moreover it was coming through a Zurich bank which was a known front for the CIA.

    BUT hold up a moment. it was coming out of bank accounts set up between Afghan rebels and said agency during the Afghan war against Russia. That suggests Al Qaeda, or if you are of a conspiratorial mind, a link to a Harvey Oswald like patsy. My view was that Al Qaeda was involved as the major subcontractor for a Saudi cabal.

    I remember asking someone, a journalist, who should know, whether there would be a lot of car accidents, involving Saudi princes. His view was that an American would visit the Saud family and throw a platter on the table.

    The western powers had propped up a load of pretty odious middle-eastern dictators for years. Were some of them directly or indirectly involved? A cordial invitation to put heads on a platter would show at which end of the leash the master stood, and might very well sow discord among the conspirators.

    On balance, and taking into account recent events in the middle east, I think the lads failed to deliver

  85. Hellraiser

    Someone smarter than me once said (paraphrase) that the easiest way to discredit a movement is to get inside it and inundate it with easily discredited theories… or something to that effect. This is true and it has been done many times in the past.

    If the Truth movement was made up of ONLY the theories you cited, then I suppose you are correct; the 19 angry Muslims who didn’t act like Muslims, would in fact be a saner explanation.

    But… that isn’t the Truth movement.

    (BTW, you forgot “ray beams from Space”, “Hologram Planes”, and “Super Secret Magic Pixie Dust”)

    But try this one on for size:

    1. The special engineer cited by NIST admitted that there were 3 controlled demolition teams on site at the WTC after the first plane hit the first Twin Tower (North Tower)

    2. NIST also explained that the reason they didn’t check for residues of high explosives in the dust from ground zero was because their consultant told them there was no reason to. Their consultant was the owner of CDI, the world’s leading explosive controlled demolition company.

    3. The consultant on the NIST report from CDI was on site and his crew was on site at Ground Zero after the first plane hit the first tower (according to NIST’s “special engineer” and according to the owner of CDI himself who admits he was there.

    4. The owner of CDI also admits that he got the contract to be in charge of the clean-up of Ground Zero and removal of debris. His company was on-site for 9 months after 9/11.

    5. No investigation, not the Joint Congressional Investigation, not the 9/11 Commission, not either one of NIST’s two reports, not even Steven Jones’ BYU sponsored “nanothermite” tests… NO investigation has EVER tested any elements or debris from Ground Zero for traces of high explosive residue. Ever.

    And the ONLY reason any of them have EVER given for not running these standard tests… is because a controlled demolition company that was there, on the scene, at the time of the “collapse” of the Twin Towers says they shouldn’t. They just happened to be the team in charge of the clean-up as well.

    6. Building 7 looked exactly like a standard controlled demolition. For 2.9 seconds, as admitted by NIST, Building 7 fell at pure free-fall acceleration, something that is physically impossible without the aid of explosive controlled demolition.

    7. Materials including massive steel beam structures were expelled from the “collapsing” buildings at speeds calculated by physics experts to be in excess of 60 mph. These intact, unbend beams could only achieve that kind of instant acceleration via the use of high explosives.

    8. Various metals and plastics were discovered by the RJ Lee Group to have been melted under extreme pressure and temperatures during the “collapse” of the Twin Towers. In fact in their report they claim that the event looked more like a ‘combustion related event”. That’s the RJ Lee Group report… not “truthers”

    9. Witnesses, some first responders, some not… reported seeing “orange flashes ringing the floors all the way down”, hearing explosions happening floor by floor all the way down, heard loud explosions and then seeing the floors ‘blown out” one after the other. In fact there are hundreds of comments like these from first responders in the Oral Histories Report, finally released to the public after a FOIA request.

    10 At the Pentagon witnesses who walked THRU the damaged area stated that there was no plane debris inside that office. No chairs, no luggage, no fuselage. Then, they report, that they were interviewed by FBI agents and TOLD that indeed those things WERE there and that what they thought they saw was WRONG.

    ———

    This is just a small sampling of the non-crazy evidence of the REAL Truth movement.

    The other theories that you have listed above are NOT the real Truth movement. They were created and promoted by people, probably well meaning believers of the official story, who want people like yourself to think that there is no rational reason for Truth advocates to believe anything but the official story. That is why they get so much press. Take for instance Jesse Ventura. You can read what I have been writing about that fake “truther” since his beginning.

    Point is, there is very good reason to question the official story of 9/11. I have only scratched the surface. When it all comes down to it, I started off with the proven fact that 3 times in one day the laws of physics were violated and yes, these were the first and ONLY times steel framed buildings completely collapsed due primarily to office fires (NIST admits the jet fuel burned off in the first 10 minutes or so) and the fact that metal was clearly melted at extreme speeds under extreme pressure (combustion like conditions) when that kind of heat could not have been present under conditions described by the official story.

    That is the reason I run this site. That and other reasons (9/11 is not my primary focus these days)

    And that my friend, based on the evidence provided by the official sources, is a much saner and detailed explanation of what happened than 19 angry Muslims.

    It is not easy to come to the conclusion I have. I spent 6 months researching and trying not to come to it. Then I spent years doing more research on the subject. Real research, not “ray beams”, not “holograms”, and not “mini-nukes”.

    The Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition using conventional high explosives commonly used in the controlled demolition industry. It is the only explanation that makes sense, and when you look at Building 7 and the destruction of the Twin Towers, you can clearly see what I am talking about. Sometimes, when you get your own desire out of the way and just look, you come to find out it’s always been there and has always been just as plain as the nose on your face.

  86. No you fucking idiot. He is saying that possibly over 10 tons were used in the explosion….not that they found 10 tons in the dust. You fucking idiot.

  87. You lying piece of shit.
    Go to 5:15 in the video where he says

    Neils Harrit: “And we know how much UNREACTED THERMITE WE HAVE FOUND. This is the “loaded gun” material THAT DID NOT IGNITE. We are talking about tonnes. Over ten tonnes, POSSIBLY 100 TONNES”

    Later he says after he suggests they brought 100 tonnes of “nanothermite” in on “pallets”…

    “you cannot fudge this kind of science”

    This man is a weasel liar, and since you come here making that claim that is OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE, you’re a fucking weasel liar just like he is, and just for the fun of it, I am going to repost this on the front page all day tomorrow. Enjoy your PR dickhead. Make sure your boss sees this one.

  88. We’d never seen anything like 9/11. Except we had, and didn’t recognize it. We needn’t go back to Operation Northwoods, the Lavon Affair, or the other false flag conspiracies of suppressed history. Just two summers before, nearly identical mechanisms of terror and control were deployed upon the Russian people to consolidate the transfer of power to Vladimir Putin, who was facing his first election, and to provide the pretext to invade Chechnya.

    Four apartment complexes had been bombed and 300 killed. Putin promised to “liquidate all terrorists.” He proclaimed Russia was facing a war between “good” and “evil.” “It’s our boys,” said Putin, fanning war fever and hysteria, “against terrorists” belonging to an “international Islamic conspiracy.”

    Residents in the city of Ryazan discovered a huge bomb in their basement and called the local police. Initially, federal authorities claimed terrorists had been thwarted, but when the perpetrators were apprehended shortly thereafter by Ryazan police, and found to be agents of Russia’s security service FSB, the story changed: it was now claimed to have been an “exercise,” and the sack of explosive hexogen was said to have contained nothing but “sugar.” In 2002, an incurious Duma voted against a parliamentary inquiry into the bombing campaign.

    The war in Chechnya is ongoing. 10% of the Chechen population is dead. Thousands of Russian conscript soldiers are dead.

    Disbelief, a documentary regarding the bombings and the revelation of state guilt, may be viewed here: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7658755847655738553&q=Disbelief

    Not only by history’s precedence, but by current events, 9/11 isn’t really that extraordinary.

    It’s interesting to note how Western pundits who would likely dismiss as nonsense the mere suggestion of a 9/11 conspiracy have no problem at all assessing the Russian apartment bombings as state terror. David Satter, a fellow of the Hoover Institution and the Hudson Institute and former Moscow correspondent for the Financial Times of London, wrote “The Shadow of Ryazan” with funding from the Smith Richardson Foundation, an abbreviated version of which was published by The National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-satter043002.asp

    It’s funny how easily the generalized dismissals of conspiracy, such as how it “meets a psychological need,” or that “something so big couldn’t be kept a secret,” vanish into one’s political blind spots. That is, to the opinion makers, conspiracy can be the most reasonable explanation of events, so long as it’s OVER THERE, and it’s something THEY do. Satter finds the FSB guilty of waging a false-flag terror campaign against the Russian people, but don’t expect him to be called a kook in a tinfoil hat for it.

    And just as in Russia’s 9/11, THE AGENTS ASSIGNED TO BLOW UP ONE OF THEIR TARGETS IN THE USA ON 9/11 WERE CAUGHT IN THE ACT BUT LATER RELEASED DUE TO A SUCCESSFUL GOVERNMENT COVERUP.

  89. I’ve come across David Chapman’s website 911speakout.org and the arguments that he makes are totally based on the available video data. His clarity and basic physics arguments i think should be the anchor of the truth movement. The nano-thermite argument may or may not be involved ultimately, but the measurable physics and observable signs are hard to deny that at least, the NIST report is a lie.

  90. Mr Creighton begins this column with a personal attack refering to Niels Harrit , whom I think is a fundamentally decent man , as a weasel.

    Tells me everthing I need to know……

  91. Some say hindsight is 20/20. It is !!! Never make a deal for your freedom if it cost u your reputation !!!! Thats my lesson ! Whats yours going to be stonethrowers !!!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: