Sunstein Agents Walk Among Us

by Scott Creighton

I recently watched a video with Bob Bowman from a Public Access show in Boston I think. Everything was going great, till the host started going on and on about… “nanothermite”.  The host said “Nanothermite is the ONLY way those buildings could have been brought down…”  What a laugh the embedded Sunstein agents of the Truth movement must have had at that one.  Unfortunately, this is a common misunderstanding held by many in our movement.  It illustrates just how successful the cognitive infiltration efforts of the 9/11 Truth movement have been.

“We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.”

 “We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers (1)by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby (2) introducing  beneficial cognitive diversity.”

… government agents “might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”  Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s regulatory czar

“Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.”
1984 [1949] George Orwell

(1)by planting doubts about the theories 9/11 Research –  Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, Gregg Roberts, Jan Hoyer – Since the very beginning, their site was committed to one thing and one thing only… to create doubt in the minds of every single Truth Advocate about any theory aside from the Official Conspiracy Theory about what hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11th, 2001. Their propaganda has been slick and relentless.  Jim Hoffman’s job was to provide the credibility as the scientist, Victoria Ashley was the Amen Corner, Jan Hoyer the web designer and graphics, and Gregg Roberts was the brains behind it all…

Roberts is a technical writer and business analyst with a bachelor’s degree in psychology, master’s-level study in social work, and earlier education in the “hard” sciences.  9/11 Research

A perfect disinfo team designed to steer a movement away from dangerous and possibly productive aspects of the unofficial investigation of 9/11 and focus them on circumstantial and ultimately unproveable aspects of the evidence of 9/11. 

(read Serious Problems With Jim Hoffman’s “A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario ” Makes His Recent Essay Far From “Plausible” )

Their success has been a model for infiltration tactics. Most well-meaning Truth Advocates will ignore discussions of the Pentagon if they don’t automatically assume that Flight 77 struck the building, contrary to all physical evidence and logic.

Building upon that success, Gregg Roberts has wormed his way into Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and brought with him the Father of the Modern Drone Industry, Dwain Deets.

note – A “disclaimer” posted on the 9/11 Research site informs the readers that even if they knew that the government was collecting IP addresses from those who visit the site and then targeting them, they still wouldn’t tell you because it would be against the Patriot Act provisions….

“The USA PATRIOT Act places restrictions on freedoms of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — restrictions that have yet to be tested in the courts. It allows individuals to be placed under electronic surveillance without their knowledge or consent, and without a court order. We have no way of knowing whether people visiting this site are being monitored, and if we did know, it would be illegal under the USA PATRIOT Act for us to share that knowledge with our visitors.”  9/11 Research

They don’t erase their site because they know that they are baiting you into being added to the NSA watch list… instead they just make up excuses as to why they don’t tell you that you are now being watched, on some small little disclaimer on a buried page on their site…. curious, isn’t it?  And this is what Gregg Roberts stands for…

does that sound like a real Truth advocate to you? or something else?

(2) introducing  “beneficial” cognitive diversity Steven Jones, Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, and many other smaller players – “beneficial cognitive diversity” is the notion that they should implant red-herring type “science” in the movement which serves to undermine credibility and once again, steer the unofficial investigation down unproductive paths that can never be proven.

The most successful of these was Steven Jones. Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds came up with ridiculous claims that would paint Truth Advocates as crack-pots and or complete idiots… Wood offered up the “ray beams from space” stupidity and Reynolds suggested that “no planes hit the towers” or his “TV fakery” fraud.  These met with some success, but the most productive of these plants for the cognitive infiltration groups, and therefore the most destructive to our cause, was by far and away… Steven Jones.

The New York Times once wrote that the most compelling mystery of 9/11 was what the RJ Lee report found to be massive amounts of “iron rich spheres” which could only have been created under massive amounts of heat and pressure. These sphere are in fact the missing trusses from the World Trade center which were melted instantly when the high explosives detonated under the 220 floor systems of the two Twin Towers.

( read The 23,000 Missing Trusses of 9/11  and  The 6,000 )

There is no way those spheres could have been created by any means under the parameters of the Official Conspiracy Theory and their presence was proof that something other than jet fuel and gravity destroyed them. When the main stream New York Times made mention of them and the serious questions they presented, cognitive infiltration was needed to undermine the unofficial investigation.

Along comes Steven Jones to take up the cause. But instead of doing the obvious tests first, testing for commonly used high explosives residue in the Ground Zero dust, Steven Jones embarked the entire Truth community on a snipe hunt – thermite, thermate, superthermite, nanothermite… Of course its super secret military” connections that, again, can never be traced, can never be proven… and so there is no real way of continuing the investigation… a dead-end provided by a man who worked for the Department of Energy and then taught at a university that was dedicated to supporting the Bush administration. Jones was “punished” by the university by being placed on paid leave, which freed him up of course to run his cognitive infiltration project full-time.

Some Straight Forward Questions For Steven Jones on the Subject of his Research

An Open Letter to Steven Jones…On the Subject of Detonator Cord

Why Doesn’t Dr. Jones Test for Explosive Residues in that Dust?

Dr. Jones Reanimates The Corpse of the “Dustification Lady”, Dr.Judy Wood

More Bad Science Surrounding the “Nano-Thermite” Red Herring

When directly confronted about the possibility of testing for residues of high explosives in the Ground Zero dust, Steven Jones at first suggested there was no way to do that because there were no “taggants”. When I explained to Jones that I knew what taggants were and that they had nothing to do with testing for residual traces of exploded high explosives and I offered 3 different methods he could use to run the tests… he pretended not to receive that email and then suggested he had to ask Gregg Roberts for permission to run the tests…  Gregg Roberts ultimately suggested that he didn’t want to run the tests, but promised to convey my suggestion to the rest of the Truth community he was involved with.

The fact that Steven Jones ultimately had to rely on Roberts, whose affliation with Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley stand as a testament to his lack of credibility in the movement, goes a long way to expose Jones himself. Then later, Jones’ little planned distraction at the AE911Truth Press conference (where he offered up a variation of Wood’s “earthquake weapon” as a means to discredit that event) proves even more that Jones, Roberts, and all the rest of them are simply parts of what Sunstein already described in his paper on the infiltration of “conspiracy theorist” movements.

It’s time we put them all behind us. It’s time we created the Truth 2.0 and ran the tests ourselves.  It’s also time for members of the Truth Advocacy movement to contact real Truth advocates like Gage and Griffin and let them know what Jones and Roberts and Hoffman represent. 

If we are to revive credibility in this movement, we have to get rid of the Sunstein agents who have already poisoned our efforts.  Weeding those three out of the movement would be a great place to start.

Advertisements

36 Responses

  1. Willo:

    Please PROVE IT, that nanothermite is not in the WTC dost.
    Find any lab that can do that test for you and prove it negative.

    Otherwise i will keeping on supporting S Jones and Dwne Deets.

  2. Steven Jones admitted as much in his paper with Neils Harrit… and then the report by the other scientist came basically to the same conclusion, that it is impossible to tell if the “red grey chips” had any explosive properties whatsoever.

    Jones himself has said in the paper and even later that the chips may be nothing more than particles of the tips of “electronic” matches used to detonate other explosives…

    so Jones have “proved it” if you just pay attention to what he has been saying.

    Then take that information and combine it with the deliberate obfuscation that Jones and Roberts presented me with when I attempted to simply suggest we test for residues of high explosives in the Ground Zero dust and a clear picture starts developing.

    After all of this, the only reason you don’t believe it is because you think there is already too much invested in the “nanothermite” theory. To you and to many others in the movement, 9/11 Truth now DEPENDS on “nanothermite”… which is exactly what Jones and his handlers wanted from the start.

    “Don’t about what happened at the Pentagon”… “Don’t talk about Building 7” (remember that push prior to the NIST Building 7 report?)… and “AVOID talking about CONTROLLED DEMOLITION UNLESS you are talking about “nanothermite”…” this is the history of the “contributions” from the likes of Hoffman, Roberts, and Ashley… and of course, Jones had to ask Robert’s permission to run the tests I was suggesting… once he ran out of ways to try and throw me off course…

    It really couldn’t be more obvious.

    But a simple test to see if there is high explosive residue present in that dust would clear the whole thing up instantly… but Jones won’t do that, will he? Jones will never do that. Because he doesn’t WANT to find it and if he lies and says he ran those tests and they came up negative, then he becomes an accessory after the fact… to 2,700+ counts of murder… and treason. The way it stands now, he’s just “wrong” about his findings… get it?

    In fact, in the paper that Harrit, Jones, Roberts and others wrote, by claiming “others should test for residues of high explosives” they safely protect themselves in the future by APPEARING to support that line of investigation. See how that works? It’s like the legal disclaimer on the Hoffman/Roberts disinfo site… a “get out of jail free” clause.

    But, so long as you are not also defending Roberts and Wood and Reynolds and Hoffman, at least I know I am at least making some headway… and I certainly hope you meant to say “Harrit” as opposed to the former head of the Drone program, Dwain Deets. I have yet to find anyone who really wants to go to bat for that obvious Lockheed Martin PSYOP contractor.

  3. when I realized that the “Jones team” had not tested for explosives in the dust it made me realize that the other cover up game going on is from the inside of truth groups…. some are going so far in some areas, and retracting from other areas of conversation.

    I was a HUGE Jones supporter from 2006 – right when he came on the scene – up until, well, till I read Willy’s tennis match of emails with Jones about testing for explosives. Heck, I even sent an email to architects and engineers – and asked the same question – my response came from some random gmail account and said in part “it’s very important, I know it is high on the list” — HA! I’ve been aware since ’05’ — so that’s 5 years of foot dragging — however, for those just awakening from their slumbers recently, I could understand how the entire “thermate” “look at the buildings fall” – all that info keeps them busy – but never asking the key question – that we could begin a criminal “CSI” style investigation of our own by just testing the dust… but, and this cannot be argued against: Jones and team will NOT test for explosives…. Pretty obvious to me…

    Willy, on another front — no planes ? I’m completely convinced the videos they brainwashed all of us with as they showed “flight 175” hitting the tower is a complete fraud. There is no way a plane goes in like that. So I am in the camp 100% that those “videos” are frauds — the Evan Fairbanks shot as well — yes, the Naudet brothers “flight 11” video too… forget about “lucky time and place to capture it” but instead there is no way the video portrays a real plane entering a real building… I do think they BLEW the towers holes – and inserted the planes later… NONE of those videos that we now say show the planes hitting were available.. it was “plane goes behind tower, explosion happens” sleight of hand…until later when the FBI gave the media more videos to play. So no, I do not buy the holograms, fooling people in downtown NY with lasers cop out — we’re talking about video manipulation. A real big curtain yet to fall is the realization that 9/11 as a “media/military” job — they fed us propaganda in several forms — from the harley guy on the street talking about “plane reamed into the towers…collapsed mostly due to structural failure” and good ol’ Jerome Hauer on all networks “explaining” who did it and why it definitely was not a demolition — again, the other piece was manipulated video images showing the planes hitting the towers — The videos out there showing examples of video manipulation is pretty clear to me now.

    However, yes, I can understand that if I wanted to engage in conversation with someone about “9/11 truth” I would start with building 7, demolition, etc –just like the “Bush Knew” push that awakened democrats wanted to run with was not the right way either —

    To me the powerful propaganda of the faked videos of planes impacting towers 1 and 2 is that it brings the conspiracy discussion full circle —- so you can go on about demolition proof – but if you play all the cards and admit – “yeah, the media showed the american pubic and world really doctored videos and showed them to the public endlessly of planes hitting to sear that in our minds” — The videos were all delivered to the media by the FBI —even the Fairbanks video he admits is an “FBI copy with no sound” every video out there was first grabbed by them… now Camera Planet owns all of it….. who owns Camera Planet anyway?

    Wily, I’m with you all the way here – and I’m wondering if you have anything written on “video manipulation” of flight 11 and flight 175 impact shots? Again, from the outside looking in, I can easily see how this video information can have a “room clearing” effect when the main goal is to bring more people into waking up to 9/11 truth….

    But truthfully — nothing in shanksville, nothing at the trade center, nothing at the pentagon (not on the size of flight 77 anyway) — nothing pieced together, no serial numbers compared….

    On that note — I wondered when reading Griffin’s debunking 9/11 debunking why he spent almost half the book talking about wargames, plane impact times, scrambled fighters… ha, Red Herrings BIG TIME… complete waste of time… it can all dovetail back to “incompetence”.

    Again, watching “flight 175” go into WTC2 — frame by frame – complete fake. Plane enters completely, then explosion “outward” — they added the plane later.

    Remember the original Loose Change showing the “flash” ? total decoy distraction -whether they knew it or not — or VonKliest’s “the pod underneath” – we’re looking at the plane without realizing it’s a totally doctored image we are watching — and for years I did the same thing — looking right at it – but for the wrong reasons…

    The only cry I hear from people who decline to accept this is that “thousands witnessed the plane impacts – no they didn’t, they witnessed an explosion, or later, smoking hole. The media initally interviewed MSM producers and newsroom suits about the planes – they weren’t ordinary witnesses by any stretch- and then there were plenty of men/women in the streets to spread the word about the planes – remember, Harley Guy even got on fox news to tell us the entire scenario within minutes:
    “a plane reamed into the tower, exploding through the other end, then I witnessed both towers collapse, mostly due to structural failure because the fires were too hot”

    It’s pure Plato’s Cave for all of us watching the boob tube…

    I would like to read anything you’ve written on that?

    Remember, Jones is a fervent supporter of the planes — “okay, planes impact the towers, and theres a huge explosion, okay I think we can all agree on that” – taken from his video from 2006 — ( I used to do several video edits of his info)– He even had someone write a paper showing “deceleration” of the plane before impact and how physics was on their side –mostly though, the paper is thinly calling the no planes theory “impossible” and bordering on calling supporters of it crazy/looney… It certainly doesn’t answer the questions that videos like September Clues points out…

  4. ahey;

    I only wrote about the “no planes hit the Towers” theory once.

    Having lived in Manhattan for 5 years, I have a unique perspective on it. Not that having lived there gives me any more valid opinion that anyone else, but I did work at a place that had big bay doors in the shop that opened up on the East River side of the bay… it was in Red Hook right beside the port.

    When the big roll up doors were open, you could see all of lower Manhattan… the Towers, the bay… all of it.

    Since 9/11 I contacted someone I used to work with who was still working there on that day. I was told that because it was such a nice day, they had the doors opened. They didn’t see the first strike on the North Tower, but afterwards, as it burned, they watched from those roll up doors.

    It was he who told me they watched as the other plane came in low on the horizon over the lower bay and bank into the South Tower.

    He had no reason to lie about it and he certainly didn’t watch it on TV.

    When you think about it, logically it also doesn’t make sense that the overall plan would be to get people looking at the North Tower then all of a sudden blow up the South Tower for no reason then tell everyone they saw something they didn’t.

    In fact, I wrote about their plan to hit Building 7 with flight 93, but a pilot who was doing his job ended that. Silverstein paniced and asked his insurance company if they would still pay out if they had to demo the building… I imagine all kinds of people paniced over that one… while Building 7 sat there fully prepped for demolition.

    And if they were running some kind of video fakery, why didn’t they fix that little BBC problem with Buidling 7 still standing there while the reporter was talking about it having collapsed already? For that matter, if they doctored the films from New York showing a plane hitting the towers, why wouldn’t they have done that for the Pentagon?

    In the end, we need a new investigation. I don’t know what they did with the videos. Some of them do look kind of odd…

    others are just missing altogether… (Pentagon)

    The way I see it, run those simple tests then watch all the culprits make a sprint to their lawyers and local DAs trying to get a deal worked out that keep them from being hung for treason…

    the rest of the story… (planes/no planes/ drones/ remote piloted aircraft/ fake phone calls/ missing trillions…) … will work itself out after that.

  5. So who actually HAS the dust/rubble anyway? I seem to remember reading something about the steel from the destroyed buildings in NYC being immediately shipped off to China (?). How did Jones et al. get their hands on a sample? Was there some sort of procedure by which they obtained it, or did they actually manage to get a sample on their own? Almost nine years after the fact it’s not like anyone can just go down to the site and scrape up some dust to test.

    Just idle questions I’ve had, but you seem like you might be able to answer them.

  6. Just a month or so ago, Jones went out of his way to discredit Gage’s work at a press conference by bringing up the notion that earthquakes could be caused by the government.

    Do you remember that?

    Well, during one of his speeches at that event he held up a package of Ground Zero dust and mentioned “People just keep giving us this stuff.”

    there is a screen shot of that moment here…

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/why-doesnt-dr-jones-test-for-explosive-residues-in-that-dust/

    What happens is that people who lived in the area grabbed a sample of the stuff as it was piled on the ground on Sept. 11th 2001. They have held onto it for all this time thinking it would be useful in an investigation.

    Well meaning people have been offering some of their samples to Jones for years now since they think he is actually doing a scientific study of the stuff.

    The sample being held by Jones in that photo actually came from someone who first gave it too Gage… and unfortunately Gage made the same mistake and gave it too Jones.

    You will also notice that since Roberts started working with AE911Truth, they have been mentioning Jones’ “nanothermite” study more and more often.

    But that is where they get the stuff. Unfortunately it ends up in Jones’ hands and then disappears when people ask if there is some they can have to run tests on themselves…

    They might as well have asked Karl Rove if they can have some (and I know because I have been asking that group for years now)

  7. Remember BBC has admitted they have “lost” ALL their original footage from 9/11…. “oops, where’d we put all that “evidence” hmmm, guess it’s gone”

    Also, the BBC footage was “caught” by an investigator/activist ( I believe he first posted to 911blogger ) –again, back in like 2006, just scrubbing through footage of that day… so yes, that was a mistake – and hence why they HAD TO cut Jane’s interview short – literally, pulled the plug…the building was about to come down –

    I always thought the classic part of the WTC 7 footage from BBC is that while the anchor in studio is talking to her – and there’s about 15 minutes before WTC 7 is REALLY going to be demolished — they lose the studio satellite connection with her – the anchor turns away from the “snowy” screen and goes into another subject all together.

    When the “Jane Stanley WTC 7” footage from BBC came out — that was the response from the BBC — they even asked the lead anchor and he feigned ignorance of the whole story (possible, he just reads teleprompters on the screens and listens to directions from producers in his ear piece like all news anchors)

    I can’t obviously rebut what you’re friends saw through the bay doors – but the videos we’ve seen are certainly fake. That discussion has nothing to do with what people saw or heard.

    – nose out shot is pretty convincing – where they fade to black and try to cover it
    – Fairbanks “glides” into the tower shot (helluva pre-positon Evan! every videographers struggle: to get in the right place at the right time)

    Aside from being run with military precision – the media’s full blessing and broadcasting of manipulated images from the govt sources sold the lie completely. We now know with technology capabilities – seeing is not believing anymore….

    I used to think in terms of “best evidence” — but we both know this thing is not gonna crack… not when they can keep key themes of the “official story” in place: hijackers, wired money, pakistan, wargames, military intercepts,

    Well it will be like JFK…Apollo Missions.. endlessly debated, both camps “ensuring” the viewers they are correct and any opposing view is fantasy. While the official myth remains enshrined in history and academia…

    Again, the dovetail back to “infiltration” of the groups out there guarantees this…

    But your rebuttal you’d have to admit you are simply taking the “but why would they” – and I’m just admitting that it’s clear in my mind the videos of plane impacts are fake at the WTC towers. Regardless of what that implies:
    1. but why didn’t they do one for building 7 ? –no idea… but it all worked out for Silverstein didn’t it? and the rest….but you have blackstone group taking over that mortgage — so these things were WELL taken care of… right? they dropped it in public for all to see —no worries -because the MEDIA protects them — show planes hit, don’t show building 7 fall…it’s worked brilliantly- the masses still haven’t a clue about building 7.

    2. Pentagon? I think you’d agree that’s another “honey pot” like Shanksville — we can go round and round with why no video — remember, regardless of any manipulation there — EVERYONE agrees the pentagon must have more videos of the impact from their “ultimate defensive military command center” right? It just distracts….

    However, showing FRAUD –that’s powerful. I think showing media fraud on that day is very important… and easier to point out now in hindsight – before we really realized the level of propaganda we were feeding us.. hey, I was once in the “blowback” category too — reading about dan hopsicker and the “atta and flying venice circus” … we know now all those guys were drug runners/ intel guys — foreign, US protected, US agents, whatever —- again, just establishing the “legends’ needed for when it was time to tell the public WHO did this to us..

    Also, they weren’t “running tv fakery” – they took a video, and added a plane — they did this to several videos — EVERY TIME the FBI was there to take the video from the “amateur” – adding their magic – then giving it to the media to play….endlessly. Watch flight 175 enter the tower on the close up – ignore any pod or flash — that’s a doctored impact you are watching. The plane COMPLETELY enters the building – then the building explodes outward (that part’s real, the plane is clearly not)

    I’m not including you here, but a HUGE clue to me is even how “truth leaders” treat independent people who bring up “manipulated video broadcast by media on 9/11” get immediately trashed and that’s where lasers, holograms talk comes from — from then….

    Alas, just like the demolition issue — we can see Jones and company hijack that issue and slow it down — no doubt the “no planes” issue (ha! in the name itself) has been hijacked and steered by many too… SO don’t say demolition explosives lets test: say Thermite! AND don’t say “manipulated video images” say: no planes! (not the best “tagline” for that issue in my opinion)

    again, completely agree —we need indictments – we need some lower level pigs to start squealing – as we’ll never find out exactly how from the outside looking in — but flashing fraud like the videos should demand continued suspicion and discussion – we can’t take for granted what the official story presents to us —- many have come to that conclusion obviously about official theory “pancaking” twin towers…

    tell you what though – I appreciate the tone of the discussion — thanks for your blog as a platform to chat about things in this vein….

    I would encourage readers to check out those videos though and think about what they are seeing…. it’s just like building 7 — when I first saw that I thought – “no way!” — can’t be, and yet, it’s all there in the open for viewing…. just need to go to the information and view…

  8. That’s sad. People are so trusting, and it’s hard to blame them for the impulse. You want the world to be a place where trust is possible.

    Now that I see it I do remember your post about this. Thanks for refreshing my memory, and my apologies for forgetting half of what you said in the first place. What really stuck with me at the time was the testing kits–how they weren’t so hard to come by and a couple hundred bucks is expensive but not prohibitively so.

    Hasn’t anybody who had the foresight to collect a sample taken the extra step before handing it off? If a lot of people saved samples you’d think at least one of them would’ve had that idea.

  9. and as far as Dwain Deets is concerned…

    this is the actual legacy of the self-proclaimed leader of the Truth movement…

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64H5SL20100518

    “Beyond the human intelligence that the CIA relies on to identify targets, Pakistani agents are sometimes present at U.S. bases, and are increasingly involved in target selection and strike coordination, current and former U.S. officials said.

    Back in Washington, the technology is considered such a success that the U.S. military has been positioning Reaper drones at a base in the Horn of Africa.

    The aircraft can be used against militants in Yemen and Somalia, and even potentially against pirates who attack commercial ships traversing the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean, officials said.

    “Everyone has fallen in love with them,” a former U.S. intelligence official said of the drone strikes

    … Under Obama, the program has grown to such an extent that, according to a Reuters tally, the nearly 60 missiles fired from the CIA’s drones in Pakistan in the first four months of this year roughly matched the number fired by all of the drones piloted by the U.S. military in neighboring Afghanistan — the recognized war zone — during the same time period.

    … Independent tallies based on news accounts from the region put the deathtoll from drones since mid-2008 much higher — at anywhere from nearly 700 to around 1,200.

    … Addicott, the former legal adviser to Army Special Operations Forces, asks: “Are we creating more enemies than we’re killing or capturing by our activities? Unfortunately, I think the answer is yes. These families have 10 sons each. You kill one son and you create 9 more enemies. You’re not winning over the population.”

    “Drones don’t impress them,” Addicott added. “In the mind of the radicals we’re cowards, we won’t fight face-to-face. This is what they teach in the madrassas.”

    now… these drones are the life’s work of Dwain Deets and they represent billions of dollars in profits for the contractors who build them, equip them, and operate them.

    here is Dwain Deets and Gregg Roberts having a little “Truth” conference chat in 2009… that is Roberts sitting right next to Deets on the left there…

  10. In fact President Chavez was the main speaker on the Haiti Earthquake USA Link

    Jones Said: “i Don’t know how to detect Conventional Explosives In the Dust”.

    Do you know?

    Please do so.

  11. I sent him links to three different ways to test for explosive residues… and he claimed that was the one email he didn’t get from me… of course he made that claim right after I sent the email…

    Steven Jones is a nuclear scientist and chemist who had been studying the dust from what we all know was a controlled demolition for years prior to my asking him those questions.

    are you telling me is an American physicist with the status of Professor Emeritus from a leading university can’t figure out how to run tests for explosive residue in the 2 years he was researching the dust from 911?

    you actually will buy that?

    and yes, lennon… as I have posted several times in the past and even as a link in the above article, which you clearly haven’t read, I do know how to test for explosive residues, and even linked to various methods and companies…

    I will attempt to post that link for you in the hopes you take the time to read at least this one…

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/why-doesnt-dr-jones-test-for-explosive-residues-in-that-dust/

  12. oh…

    and Chavez wasn’t at the AE911Truth press conference which Jones deliberately undermined… and personally I really don’t care what Chavez thinks about man-made earthquakes… he’s a politician.

    But don’t try and drag him into this. He had nothing to do with what Jones said and when he said it. That was all Steven Jones…

    and in case you haven’t noticed, what has Jones been doing since? That’s right, not much.

  13. This is the best piece I’ve run into on this blogsite. Congratulations.

    This raises so much material I hardly know where to begin or end. (By the way, readers here should approach the ideas of ahey2012 with great skepticism: Assuming that writer is sincere and not yet another disinfo agent, he seems to have fallen into the common trap of amateurs misinterpreting video images without recognizing that they tend to come with “shadows” and other misleading imagery around the margins. Much of the would-be moon mission debunking is based around these kinds of misconceptions.)

    Anybody who’s spent much time on 9/11 truth discussions knows Victoria “Vic” Ashley is the great scold of the movement, ready to pounce on any exploratory thought, especially as concerns the Pentagon, uh, crash. I just love her oft-repeated argument that the reason the government has been withholding all those videos is so as eventually to discredit 9/11 truthers by showing that the crash happened exactly as the government has always claimed. How diabolically clever are those Pentagon boys!

    My personal nomination for “Sunstein agent” goes to 911blogger, which, last I heard, is headed up by a Jason Keogh. My posts are blocked (whereas for years they were posted), and the website refuses to explain why. And this has been the experience of very many people.

    My sin? I suspect it’s because I kept emphasizing the fact that the MSM is controlled by the CIA’s Project Mockingbird. Nobody can understand 9/11 — or how 9/11 could’ve happened in the first place — without appreciating that the perpetrators knew full well that they could count on the MSM, not only to take the OCT at face value, but actively to cover up salient info about 9/11. Unlike a few years ago, when now I look at 911blogger, those making comments on the blog are restricted to those who think that the MSM will come our way if only we present them more evidence. Which, of course, is what the perps hope we imagine.

    What the disinfo agents want is for people to believe that the media suffers from, oh, things like ignorance, conventionality, or — as Mockingbird agent extraordinaire Noam Chomsky and his acolytes would have us believe — a corporate mindset. (The important thing about the corporate mindset thesis, whatever its intrinsic merits, is that it offers no way to recruit the larger public into an awareness of the empirical crimes of the ruling elite — i.e. it’s a political dead end.)

    One thing 911blogger can’t get enough of (at least since when I used to read it regularly) is Jon Gold. WTF? So far as I can tell, this guy is a self-promotion machine, constantly selling himself as some kind of friend (though the details are made hazy) of 9/11 rescue workers. Hard to attack this guy, seems to be the subtext, because — gosh darnit — he _cares_ so deeply about all those long-suffering people. But Gold never has anything of substance to say about 9/11, _except_ he doesn’t believe in CD. (Though he fails to explain exactly why.)

    Sunstein agent, Sunstein agent, Sunstein agent.

    Anyway, thanks, willy/Scott, for raising the stuff nobody “respectable” wants to raise: That any conspiracy as sophisticated as 9/11 sure as heck isn’t going to leave the peasants alone to figure out what happened that day.

  14. “That any conspiracy as sophisticated as 9/11 sure as heck isn’t going to leave the peasants alone to figure out what happened that day.”

    you are absolutely right about that.

    I do think that Jon Gold was eventually run off from 911Blogger, which was certainly a controlled opposition site for a very long time and may still be to this day. Jon Gold is certainly a self-promoter and he shields himself from critisism by attempting to wrap himself in the 9/11 families as if he were their voice or something.

    But eventually his ego go the best of him. After thinking he was successful in keeping people from talking about Building 7, then the Pentagon, then controlled demolition itself, Jon Gold started badmouthing David Ray Griffin… and that was the end of Jon Gold at Blogger…

    Now he is glomming onto Cindy Shehan trying to milk that gravy train of publicity as long as he can. He even has headshots of his fat ass to pass out for autographs I suppose. I think the only place that even tolerate his bullshit is TruthAction these days.

  15. This is what Dwain Deets, the man sitting next to Gregg Roberts who has written at least one paper with Roberts, has contributed to our cause…

    “The social worker recalled arriving at a home that was hit, in Miranshah, at about 9:00 p.m., close to one year ago. The house was beside a matchbox factory, near the degree college. The drone strike had killed three people. Their bodies, carbonized, were fully burned. They could only be identified by their legs and hands. One body was still on fire when he reached there. Then he learned that the charred and mutilated corpses were relatives of his who lived in his village, two men and a boy aged seven or eight. They couldn’t pick up the charred parts in one piece. Finding scraps of plastic they transported the body parts away from the site. Three to four others joined in to help cover the bodies in plastic and carry them to the morgue.

    But these volunteers and nearby onlookers were attacked by another drone strike, 15 minutes after the initial one. Six more people died. One of them was the brother of the man killed in the initial strike.

    The social worker says that people are now afraid to help when a drone strike occurs because they fear a similar fate from a second attack. People will wait several hours after an attack just to be sure. Meanwhile, some lives will be lost that possibly could have been saved.

    The social worker also told us that pressure from the explosion, when a drone-fired missile or bomb hits, can send bystanders flying through the air. Some are injured when their bodies hit walls or stone, causing fractures and brain injuries. ”

    http://original.antiwar.com/kelly/2010/05/18/drones-and-democracy/

    this is from my article, Strange Bedfellows…

    “The Altus programs being run at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center ended up becoming the Predator and Global Hawk unmanned vehicle bonanza for the Blue Brothers and a few others. But even they weren’t the first incarnations of the unmanned flight programs.”

    “Oddly, one name that keeps popping up in my NASA Dryden HiMAT Program research, is Dwain Deets.

    In 1996 (same year as the start of the Altus project?) Dwain Deets was appointed Director, Aerospace Projects Office at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. Deets had an extensive background with unmanned drone flight development dating back as far as 1974. He was involved with the HiMAT project according to the NASA webpage.”

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

  16. He is as shill as you are willo

    This is from wikipedia:

    Steven E. Jones.

    “On September 22, 2005 Jones presented his views on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and World Trade Center 7 at a BYU seminar attended by about 60 people. Pointing to the speed and symmetry of the collapses, the characteristics of dust jets, eyewitness reports of explosions down low in the buildings, partially vaporized beams, molten metal in the basements which was still red hot weeks after the event, and the notion that no modern high rise had ever collapsed from fire, Jones suggested that the evidence defies the mainstream collapse theory and favors explosive demolition, possibly by the use of thermite or nanothermite. He called for further scientific investigation to test the controlled demolition theory and the release of all relevant data by the government.[11] Shortly after the seminar, Jones placed a paper “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” on his page in the Physics department website, with a note that BYU had no responsibility for the paper.[12]

    He subsequently defended the research at Idaho State University, Utah Valley State College, University of Colorado at Boulder and University of Denver, the Utah Academy of Science, Sonoma State University, University of California at Berkeley, and the University of Texas at Austin. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

    On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU’s website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave. [20] The university cited its concern about the “increasingly speculative and accusatory nature” of Jones’ work and the concern that perhaps it had “not been published in appropriate scientific venues” as reasons for putting him under review. The review was to have been conducted at three levels: BYU administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, and the Physics Department.[21] Jones’ colleagues also defended Jones’ 9/11 work to varying degrees,[22] and Project Censored lists his 9/11 research among the top mainstream media censored stories of 2007.[23]

    Jones’ placement on paid leave drew criticism from the American Association of University Professors and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Both organizations are long time critics of BYU’s record on academic freedom.[24] Jones “welcomed the review” because he hoped it would “encourage people to read his paper for themselves,” however the review was abandoned (contrary to Jones’ request) when Jones elected to retire, effective January 1, 2007.[25]

    Jones has been interviewed by mainstream news sources and has made a number of public appearances. While Jones has urged caution in drawing conclusions,[26] some believe that his public comments have suggested a considerable degree of certainty about both the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center and the culpability of elements within the U.S. government.[27] In one interview, he asserted that the attacks were “an ‘inside job’, puppeteered by the neoconservatives in the White House to justify the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries, inflate military spending, and expand Israel.”[28] His name is often mentioned in reporting about 9/11 conspiracy theories.[29]

    Jones has published several papers suggesting that the World Trade Center was demolished with explosives, but his 2005 paper, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” was his first paper on the topic and was considered controversial both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor.[30] Jones’ early critics included members of BYU’s engineering faculty;[31] shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones’ work. They noted that Jones’ “hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners,” and expressed doubts about whether they had been “submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review.”[32]

    Jones maintained that the paper was peer-reviewed prior to publication within a book “9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out” by D.R. Griffin[33] The paper was published in the online peer-reviewed, “Journal of 9/11 Studies”, a journal co-founded and co-edited by Jones for the purpose of “covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001.” The paper also appeared in Global Outlook,[34] a magazine “seeking to reveal the truth About 9/11″[35] and in a volume of essays edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott.[36]”

    He is as shill as you are willo.

  17. what exactly does that have to do with the information I have provided? A copy and paste from and editable source like Wiki?

    I present you with detailed information based on a year and a half of research and you copy and paste wiki then decide from that that I am an “agent”?

    yeah… that makes sense…

    but you still haven’t addressed what you asked me to do and that was to provide examples of how to test for residues?

    why don’t you address the fact that this revered scientist can’t figure out how to test for explosive residues even though he had previously suggested in his paper that someone should test for it?

    and you copy and paste some wiki crap and that is your answer?

    you see how identity politics works?

    you ignore the facts in front of you and resort to name calling just to keep your image intact.

  18. and lennon…

    next time you want to copy and paste, make sure it is to the point, direct, and relevant to the point we were discussing…

    copying and pasting large texts may make you think you are proving some point, but everyone over the age of 18 knows you are just trying to put up a smoke screen of bullshit.

    and one more thing…

    if you are going to start throwing around baseless accusations of “agent” while offering up no proof of such, I am going to be forced to treat you like any other troll.

    address the point I answered from you involving ways to test for high explosive residue or say nothing. But calling someone an “agent” and spamming up Wiki is the response of a troll….

    just like the trolls I used to encounter back in the Bush days…. if you are going to take on their tactics, I am going to give you the same respect I gave them

  19. The Data from wikipedia shows that long before he started talking abouth the nonothermite theory (around 2008) he had been talking about all the things you prefer to talk about like WTC7, Controlled demolition, Molten Metal etc.

    The wikipedia stuff i brought like a biography.

    ““On September 22, 2005 Jones presented his views on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and World Trade Center 7 at a BYU….”

    I do like him and Barret and Deets and even Fetzer.

    Sorry if you don’t like them

    If he is a troll you are one too.

    That’s my oppinion

  20. jlennon08 wrote:

    “He is as shill as you are willo.” Later: “If he is a troll you are one too.”

    Uh, could you flesh that out a bit? Or at least provide a link backing up these accusations?

  21. “. (By the way, readers here should approach the ideas of ahey2012 with great skepticism: Assuming that writer is sincere and not yet another disinfo agent, ”

    you people kill me RP — sitting in your living room banging away on a typewriter – have you ever done a public event regarding this info? I’ve done many, you can check the link below. I’m sorry, but I am so sick of this “dis-info” crap — YES, I completely agree with you – any “911 truth leader” of importance is controlled — but blog comments – ie: nobodies out there — ie: ME! — get real — come on, there are a lot of sincere folks out there – and everyone is at their different point on the 911 truth map — just think, somebody just yesterday started their journey down the rabbit hole because their friend just showed them building 7…..yes, to this day, in 2010 – that is jaw dropping and new to many people…. If we were in Vegas, I’d go all in on “manipulated plane impact videos” shown on the MSM — that’s how convinced I am.. just so you know. But again, I’m a messenger here – it’s not my info – it’s out there for all to view…just like the building 7 video —

    http://hb911truth.blogspot.com

    “he seems to have fallen into the common trap of amateurs misinterpreting video images without recognizing that they tend to come with “shadows” and other misleading imagery around the margins. Much of the would-be moon mission debunking is based around these kinds of misconceptions.)

    no, no, no, more simple than that – I don’t think a plane on video glides into a video like that – in fact, slowed down frame by frame, I don’t think it enters intact – and then explodes out the same side it entered – it’s not a real image, it’s hollywood. BUT I love the armchair diagnosis doc! — “common trap of amatuers” — how do I get my PhD in 911 anyway? Sorry folks, the plane impacts are phony – I would LOVE Wily to do a breakdown on the laundry list of shots out there proving that just like jet fuel doesn’t pulverize buildings — planes don’t melt into buildings and then explode — so debunk the “top 10 vids showing manipulated planes” and stop pontificating on “the common trap of amatuers”. Note: you are attacking the messenger, not the info…but I don’t think you’re a troll or an agent RP — I just think you’re not comfortable with that info yet because you haven’t looked at it close enough.

    You also show you’re not comfortable with the realization that the Apollo missions are FRAUD as well. Yes, folks — Gen X – myself is getting an education about the crap they used to feed to you baby boomers — Armstrong on the moon? No chance. Like the BBC — NASA has lost ALL the Apollo moon tapes – sorry kids no HD 1080i transfers coming anytime soon — just the “copies of copies” via 1969 tv cameras…. oh, and we can’t go back – in fact, we lost the blueprints to the command module, rovers, everything – we have to start all over… so even though it took us 9 years to get to the moon since JFK’s announcement — we can’t get back for another I think 40 years is what NASA said.. Oh, remember Obama just cancelled Bush’s return to the moon by 2020 — he had to, we can’t get there. We’ve never been beyond lower earth orbit…. I know I’m off topic – but RP brought it up the comparison — in which I think it was a good comparison: video fakery from July 1969 all the way to September 2001 right ?

    Remember, the guy who realized the “moon rock” he got from Armstrong — in a nice plaque, name plate — it was petrified wood!! The guy sold it to someone and plain as day — like building 7… they discovered it was petrified wood, no kidding… because, being from the moonwalker armstrong and a piece of the moon it was worth $$ something — but not after the appraisal revealed what it really was…

    See the lies they sell us eventually wear out their warranty… gulf of tonkin, pearl harbor, and on…and on…. even psyop events like “moon landings” and “9/11”

    I recommend this site linking a series of articles on the apollo missions:
    http://davesweb.cnchost.com/ (link to articles is near top of home page)

    (however, it doesn’t even address the video evidence (ie: Armstrong, Collins, Aldrin faking their “halfway to the moon shot” by using the round portal window and blocking out the lights in their capsule as they were in “lower earth orbit”.)

    I also highly recommend a site called: truthin7minutes.com

    I won’t continue my rant Willy — I admit I stumbled upon your site by googling info about steve jones controlled opposition — and again “jaw dropped” upon realization that NONE of these organizations have tested for residual explosives — and finding out for myself (again, right, “research it for yourselves boys and girls ALL of it!”) when I emailed AE911truth to ask if that was true – had anybody tested the dust — and yup, Wily is legit and correct on that…

    But check those links out RP — and if you’ve been consumed by the issue as I was a few years ago – heavily to the point to do community events — let me know what you’re doing aside from diagnosing 911 amatuers… I for one don’t think we’ve been given any info about any planes to the point of swallowing comfortably…. “phone calls” “missing family members” — that has nothing to do with manipulated video images — Remember that distinction: what happened live in New York that day VS. the videos that the other 99.9% of the world watched via their televisions…. you and me included.

  22. lennon08

    1. you still haven’t addressed the fact that I provided you with a link showing that I do in fact know how we can test for explosive residue.

    2. Yes, he started talking about “nanothermite” in 2008… before that, he was talking about…

    thermite – 2006
    thermate (w/ sulfer to speed the process) – 2006/2007
    superthermite / nanothermite – 2008

    his paper in 2005 (late 2005) was simply a restatement of the RJ Lee report findings on the “iron rich spheres” …. which, I make mention of in the article above and which is refered to as one of the biggest mysteries of 9/11 (along with a piece of steel with holes in it)…

    So you see, lennon, he has Always been about those “iron rich spheres” and he always been about trying to explain them away as “thermite” or some variation of “thermite”… since 2006… NOT 2008.

    3. did I say anything about Barret or Fetzer?

    4. If after all this time, after all the things I have written here, after all the other shit I have done, if you feel you have to consider me a “agent” simply because I present facts that call Jones’ behavior into question… so be it.

    but you better start paying attention to the Truth movement… people are starting to catch on to Dr. Jones. I am not the only one, by far.

    and one last thing…

    5. The “trollish” behavior I was refering to, was yours, not Jones’…. you really should read more carefully.

  23. I am not accusing anyone of anything

    I am supporting Jones and others.

    This was a deceptive Controlled demolition as RICHARD GAGE claims, that’s why I support the combine use of other types of explosives which generate less flashes and Bangs.
    If you saw the CBC documentary the seismic waves were not as big as regularly they are.

  24. well at least this time you aren’t calling me names…

    let’s see how you deal with this…

    1. the seismic activity recorded during the event could very easily have been less than what is usually expected during a explosive controlled demolition.

    but that does not validate the flawed Jones/Harrit study

    two reasons:

    1. distance. seismic activity is a measure of the tremors in the ground. These building were 110 stories tall, there had never been a demo that tall before, in fact, the 47 story Building 7 would have been a world record itself, had the Twin Towers not been demoed also.

    2. (now this is the big one) In standard demolitions they use det cord for a dual purpose. They use it to break up some concrete structure and also to connect the RDX charges planted in other concrete structures. Those they have to drill into the concrete and “pack” in place. The resulting shock waves are very powerful and the concusion is very loud. Then you also have “cutter” charges and “kicker” charges” and so forth.

    Now, in order to reduce the sound and to also provide an almost universal pulverization of the concrete, I believe they used det cord on the floor structures exclusively….

    That would mean that there were no drilled RDX charges and therefore no extremely loud detonations (det cord is quieter than RDX packed into concrete)

    Since the floors were pulverizing at a rate of about 10 per second, (10 second “collapse” time of the 110 story buildings) that means the det cord rigged under the floors was detonating at the same pace.

    So what you would hear would be one long 10 or 11 second muted explosion.. remember, in a standard demolition, the windows and walls are removed as are the ceilings, carpets, funiture, drywall… ect…

    So yes, since all of those things were still in place, they would have muffled the sound a bit as well.

    Then consider that the charges themselved may very well have been run through electrical chases that were designed into the original floor sections of the Towers. That would mean that the det cord could not even have been seen had someone looked up into the area above the dropped ceilings and it would have muffled the explosions that much more….

    That would also explain why you didn’t see many flashes… though, eye witnesses DID REPORT seeing flashes going all around the floors one floor after the other and eyewitnesses DID REPORT hearing popping sounds all the way down as they were demoed.

    You see, my solution is based on an understanding of the construction of the towers, an understanding of the demolition process, and an understanding of the high explosives that are commonly used in that process and then all of that is applied to what we KNOW happened on 9/11.

    Your “nanothermite” theory is based on material that Jones himself says he cannot even be sure it could create a detonation wave… and without a detonation wave, “nanothermite” couldn’t demo a doghouse.

    As far as “RICHARD GAGE” is concerned… of course this was designed to be a “deceptive demolition”… that’s pretty obvious…

    but that in NO WAY implies that Gage believe that “nanothermite” is the only way those buildings could have been demoed.

    In fact “RICHARD GAGE” looked pretty pissed off at Jones when he tried to submarine his press conference.

  25. all I am saying is that there are other explinations than just “nanothermite”.

    and in this case, much more plausible ones. I mean hell, Jones can’t even offer a plausible method that his nanothermite could have been used to drop those towers, or even to have been used as a cutter charge, much less, pulverize the concrete floors.

    that is unless you buy into the Hoffman “1.8 million ceiling tile bombs” theory.

  26. All scientifics try to explain the causes according to their knowledge in a particular field.

    We see that every day in medicine when psichiatrists blame all illnesses on mental issues and so on.

    This is from AE911TRUTH:

    They say the IRON spheres are the result of thermitic reaction.

    Do you have any link to were it shows that regular controlled demo produces Iron Spheres and not Molted steel.?

  27. Who would I get that information from? CDI? the guys who took charge of the clean up after 911 and the biggest explosive demolition company in the country?

    Remember something: this wasn’t a typical demoliton job, right?

    Typically they just break the concrete floor sections up, but they don’t try to pulverize them. The reason for that is that the demolition company is responsible for the clean-up and its easier to clean up chunks of floor than all that dust spread out across a city.

    So they used more det cord, therefore more heat was released.

    That is true though, “iron” spheres are a result of the thermite reaction… but the fact is the spheres are not just iron. That’s a big difference.

    Check out the RJ Lee report. Those spheres contained a lot more than just “iron”… carbon, manganese, phosphorus, silicon sulfer and other things.

    that is also what you find in the composition of the trusses… they weren’t A-36 structural steel (as Gage mistakenly identified them once)

    They were HSLA (high strength low alloy) steel.

    One more thing… though Jones can’t prove that the “nanothermite” he found can create a detonation wave, PETN and RDX can…

    PLUS… PETN burns HOTTER than thermite…

    PETN burns at about 7,500 deg f.

  28. Let me see if I’m understanding this:

    It seems to me that one of the first things a researcher of the physical evidence would do is compare the WTC dust to the dust at known sites (i.e. preferably more than one or two) of CD.

    I don’t get, and never got, the impression that Jones or anyone else did this.

    If my impression is correct, this would be odd. One of the better circulated pieces of literature for 9/11 truth has been a comparison of how the “collapse” of the WTC skyscrapers is uniquely similar to CD (and is unlike other circumstances that might cause a skyscraper to come down). But one of the things that wasn’t on the list was a comparison of the dust-debris between the WTC and CD — which is initially understandable, as such a comparison takes special equipment and research skills.

    Instead, Jones seems to have leaped to his thermite thesis in his very first public foray into 9/11.

    Question: Do conventional CD explosives also cause microspheres to form? If so, how do they compare in size, quantity, makeup etc. with the WTC? (These are rhetorical questions, because I don’t think the answers have ever been made public, if they’ve even been studied with the requisite equipment and set of skills. But please correct me if I’m off-base here.)

  29. Its funny you should ask that RP.

    Like you said, this kind of comparison should have been one of the first things they did in a truly scientific study.

    I happen to think that the very first thing they should have done would be to test for the residual proof of the use of high explosives, but that is just me. After all, the Truth movement is based on the conclusion that the Towers were brought down in an explosive controlled demolition right?

    To this day, Jones and all the rest have not run those tests.

    But, in 2008, in the Harrit/Jones paper, they did make a comparison to samples taken from another controlled demolition. Two other demolitions.

    But I noticed something when I was reading the paper… I noticed that they didn’t explain where and how they had obtained the samples.

    That’s highly unusual in a scientific paper.

    When I wrote to Steven Jones about this, he dragged his feet about it but finally he told me they came from these two demo jobs, and he only told me the names of the projects (the buidlings).

    It took me less than an hour to find out they were both CDI jobs.

    So in short, Steven Jones used two samples of “typical” controlled demolitions in his paper that he obtained from CDI (probably the primary suspect) and then he deliberately left any mention of that fact out of his paper.

    Now, perhaps if there was another job in which the construction of the floor systems were trusses and the demolition crew had wanted to pulverize the concrete into dust, then maybe we could compare that demolition dust to the Twin Towers…

    but that never happened before.

    So I wouldn’t imagine you could find that.

    However, you could run a test… you could take a floor section, rig it like I have said, light it up, then see what you get as a result.

  30. Sorry to announce my ignorance, but what’s CDI? (Not Center for Defense Information — which is a private nonprofit — I’d think.)

    In asking my previous questions, I was forgetting that the WTC was overwhelmingly pulverized in a way that conventional skyscraper CDs aren’t, making dust comparisons awkward, if still possible.

    Still, it should be possible to get a sense of the kinds of microspheres that would emerge out of a conventional CD and then see how these are alike or different from what was found at WTC.

    Changing the subject slightly:

    It seems to me that word should be gotten out that if ordinary people still possess samples of WTC dust, they ought to hang onto to them for the time being and be very hesitant to pass them on to self-styled researchers, no matter how academically qualified or how they represent themselves. At minimus, it might well be part of a scheme directed by the perps to remove such evidence from circulation or to tamper with it.

  31. RP

    CDI is Controlled Demolitons Inc.

    They supervised the clean up after 9/11 meaning when someone says that no one found evidence of explosive devices at Ground Zero, that was because CDI didn’t find any.

    CDI was also brought in to explain that NIST didn’t need to test for explosive residue because CDI didn’t think it looked like a controlled demolition.

    CDI also gets massive defense department contracts.

    CDI’s owner is also on record admitting that he called friends in lower Manhattan and warned them that the buildings would fall down prior to their collapse.

    That’s who Steven Jones got his samples from, by the way.

  32. Willo :

    I checked out S. Jones sources for samples and they are on the record and very credible

    Jones IS NOT the enemy Willo. i joined the movement in part due to his BRAVE JOB.

    Also Alex Jones is a brave man also althouth i don’t like him.

    This is a source:

  33. either you misconstrued what I said by accident, or because you didn’t read what I wrote very clearly…

    his samples that I was talking about were the ones he got to compare as other controlled demolitions samples.

    I am not talking about the samples he got from the Ground Zero dust.

    The comparison samples he got from CDI and he admitted that to me in emails. And he definately left that information out of his Harrit paper.

    He left that information out of the paper because he knows many people consider CDI to be a possible suspect so it would be odd of Jones to get proof from them that supports the idea that CDI didn’t do it…

    and Alex Jones… well, if you can’t see through that…

  34. good grief Willy, you have explained that sample comparison ..what.. three times now… you have a lot of patience… 🙂
    yeah…. even I understand what s jones did…. wonder if those ‘jones’ are kin? just kidding

    and RP….. you think peope who have valid samples should hid their samples until…. when? you mean like.. .. was that a veiled threat to them?

  35. WIly,

    Do you think there is any way – or do you have any contact information for folks out there who have wtc sample dust? Either who have already come forward and given to Jones and/or have been identified as possessing dust samples?

    just curious if you’ve tried to get any — I know you’ve discovered a many affordable test kits to do the testing with —

    if you have any contact info or paths to go down let me know, I myself would contact them for a sample and buy a kit to test it with — based off of what kit you think it would be best to start with also.

  36. Jan wrote:

    “and RP….. you think peope who have valid samples should hid their samples until…. when? you mean like.. .. was that a veiled threat to them?”

    Veiled threat? I have no idea what you’re talking about.

    I’d think at this point nonscientists who possess original samples should hang onto them until there’s a reasonably large and heterogeneous team of scientists working together to study them, such that the samples would be available for a wide variety of tests and considerable pains would be undertaken to intersubjectively safeguard the samples against loss or tampering.

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: