Too Little Too Late: Darcy Wearing Continues the Undermining of AE911Truth

by Scott Creighton

 The Details are NEVER “Irrelevant” You Fucking Jackass

Two weeks ago I attempted to point out some major problems with an article posted on the AE911Truth webite that were painfully obvious, unsupported by the statements made by the expert they interviewed (Tom Sullivan), and without any reference links to their source materials which they were misrepresenting as something other than what they were.  These are the two articles I wrote…

The Poorly Scripted Cognitive Infiltration of AE911Truth and Tom Sullivan’s Lies of Omission

Major Problems with Tom Sullivan’s AE911Truth “Interview”

On June 27th at 1:30 am (I was very determined to get them to fix these problems before they reflected badly on our movement) I replied to an email action alert sent out by AE911Truth which featured a link to their deeply flawed article.  After going back and forth with the author of that work, Darcy Wearing, he finally agreed to make “corrections”.  Those corrections are not nearly enough…

Correction and Clarification: Article: Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee

Though they have finally posted this “correction” (after two full weeks of making the Truth movement look like dishonest morons) they (and by that I mean Darcy Wearing and “Gregg” Roberts) are STILL trying their best to continue to push the main point of their “Poorly Scripted Cognitive Infiltration”… which is as it has always been… “conventional high explosives were not used in the demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7” (which just happens to be the exact same position as Shyam Sunder of NIST…)

“But, the device as described in the patent is only an igniter heat source only used to ignite larger charges…” Darcy Wearing

Misleading… the device was designed to ignite “propellent charges”… you don’t get to just drop off  a word in the description then PRETEND that “charges” could IMPLY “thermite cutter charges”.  Thermite cutter charges did not exist at that time and with the exception of one patent (no one can tell whether it was ever actually marketed) these is NO EVIDENCE that were used in 2001.

“… where as the Twin Towers may have been destroyed with more explosive materials like C4 and the nano-thermitic composite explosives (which have been documented in other articles).”  Darcy Wearing

There is no such thing as “nano-thermitic composite (high) explosives” and even Jones himself is now leaning toward the “electric match” explanation for his “tens of tons” of the “unexploded material” he supposedly found in Ground Zero dust samples.  A low explosive could NOT have pulverized the floor systems NOR could it have taken out the 47 5 foot by 3 foot columns of 5″ thick steel in a manner FAST ENOUGH to have demoed those building at near free-fall acceleration.

Notice Wearing also mentions “C-4” which is a military grade high explosive that clearly isn’t used in the demolition industry whereas PETN and RDX are used in the industry commonly. He never mentions ANY of the commercial high explosives that we SHOULD BE TESTING FOR RIGHT NOW

This entire thing, all of it, is designed to do two things…

1. undermine the credibility of AE911Truth and Richard Gage and by extension the entire Truth movement (that’s you and me by the way)..

2. continue with the primary purpose of the cognitive infiltration of the Truth movement which was and is to keep our unofficial investigation from looking at the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 as it was achieved by CONVENTIONAL HIGH EXPLOSIVES CARRIED OUT BY A DEMOLITION CONTRACTOR…. ie… CDI.

So they brought out a former CDI employee and LIFELONG friend of the family that owns CDI carefully mislead the members of the Truth movement.

To further illustrate my point, Wearing included an “editorial comment” in his correction in which he made the following statements:

Next to the discovery of Nano-thermite in the WTC dust, the question of whether such thermite-based devices were used is a side issue…

In the debate about what brought down the World Trade Center, providing the grand “problem-reaction” for which the War on Terror is the alleged “solution,” our position is solid on every important point. This is underscored by our critics’ noisy attention to small errors such as this….

The details of how the demolitions were accomplished are largely irrelevant at this point in time.  Darcy Wearing

He continues to try to promote the “nanothermite” Red Herring, insinuates that misrepresenting diagrams and Tom Sullivan’s statements are “small errors”, and even says that the details of the investigation are “irrelevant” at this point. 

Details are NEVER “irrelevant” for ANYONE who has spent YEARS carefully researching and documenting what happened on Sept. 11th 2001!

I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THOSE DETAILS ARE “IRRELEVANT” TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THOSE WHO LOST THEIR LIVES THAT DAY

And those details are certainly NOT “irrelevant” to any prosecutor or Attorney General who will be approached and asked, based on our evidence, to reopen the investigation into 9/11.

This is NOT the kind of “correction” that I would expect from a volunteer at AE911Truth who was trying to get the accurate story out to the other Truth advocates… this is the kind of retraction one expect from someone who is trying their best to maintain the credibility of their distraction.  It is pathetic and seemingly deliberately insulting to all Truth advocates who CARE about getting the research RIGHT as well as the thousands of people directly harmed by the events of 911.

In my final email exchange with Wearing, after he told me he was going to post this “correction”, I agreed to keep all email conversations between the two of us private… because he asked me too(and he asked only because he seems to be in direct contact with another “Gregg” Roberts employee).  Well, I expected an honest correction not this snarky attempt to respin his BS and INSULT Truth advocates.  So all bets are off.

For those of you who are interested, try looking up L-3 Communication Systems East: “Greg” Roberts: L-3 Electronics Toronto and Darcy Wearing Toronto; L-3 Titan; L-3 and Global Hawk; L-3 and Dryden Flight Research Center; “Gregg” Roberts and Dwain Deets; L-3 Communications and the National Security Agency…

[W]e 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 (or CONTRACTORS LIKE L-3 COMMUNICATIONS EAST) (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity. (Page 219.) Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein    

It should also be noted that during the email exchange… Wearing offered me a debate… live and in person and broadcast LIVE over the internet (before the Obama administration shuts it down I hope) between me and “Gregg” Roberts, himself and others like possibly Dwain Deets… once I responded telling him that I would ACCEPT on the condition that we debated the need to test for explosive residues (therefore “nanothermite” vs. conventional demolition) rather than just a “flamewar” AND that I wanted a neutral moderator like David Ray Griffin… I NEVER heard back about it.  I wanted Roberts, Jones, Harrit, and Deets to debate me live and in person… and apparently the Doctors and Professors and NASA program chiefs don’t want to debate one little college dropout…

that should tell you something about their program now shouldn’t it?

Advertisements

64 Responses

  1. Interesting….. and for them to say ‘details are irrelevant’.. is so ignorant……. details are always important….. they make or break the ‘point’……
    and it looks like Darcey wants to break the ‘point’ and sweep it under the rug.

  2. Scott. I want to see this debate! It’ll be a shame if the b’tards don’t have the balls to take you on.

  3. Thank you Jasper. They offered it. I certainly hope they intend to make good on it.

    this is the email they sent me:

    “Scott,

    It is funny how things work out, I have contacted Gregg and JM who are willing to set up a public, live feed debate, for all the movement to listen too. I am waiting to hear back from Dwain and Tom.

    Write down the key points you would like to discuss. We will do the same. We are looking for a mediator as we speak. Do you accept?

    **”

    and my reply:

    Darcy;

    There would have to be conditions set, obviously, but I would certainly accept were they met.

    Gregg and JM would be fine, but lets face it, my argument has always been to test that material for residues of high explosives. This is the end result I want so the debate that I want is one the merits of testing. That means a debate about the actual controlled demolition theories themselves. I am not exactly sure that is what you are offering.

    Since the offer seems to be for me to debate Gregg and JM (am I too assume that is John Michael?) and possibly Deets and Tom, well, I don’t know where that is going. Well, I do know where that would be going, and it seems you misunderstand what I have been trying to do.

    The very first article, the reason I sent it to you, was to get someone there at AE to fix certain problems that I and others have taken notice of. It was not about making someone look bad, it was about protecting the integrity of AE911Truth… I think I made that pretty clear in several emails. I had hoped that there would be some minor corrections, perhaps remove those two Power Slides or at least edit the captions or add some links for reference, and that would be it.

    But the point was to help get the fixes made before the debunkers had a field day with it. I can only guess that they have been (not that anyone reads them anymore)

    So, here’s the short answer..

    If you wish to set up a debate about the two competing demolition theories, Steven Jones would have to be involved or Harrit of course with Gregg (since he coauthored the “nanothermite” paper… Deets and Tom don’t make much difference.

    If you wish to set up a debate about what I think about Gregg and a certain group in the movement, well… I don’t know that a flamewar is actually that productive one way or the other. There are plenty of questions I would like to ask these men in public. So that might be fun to.

    But I chose the mediator, that is not up for negociation. It would someone that I know would be neutral.. someone well versed in the history and the facts as we know them now in the unofficial investigation into 911. David Ray Griffin. Too many people in this movement seem to have “chosen sides” already on this topic (CD) yet I think Griffin would certainly put his preconceived notions behind him for something like this and he would certainly enjoy the exchange I think.

    You get Griffin as a mediator and I will debate Gregg, Jones, Deets, Harrit, “JM”, Tom, Hoffman, even yourself I assume.. in any combination or all together.

    Scott Creighton

  4. In case you haven’t seen it, w at Facts Not Fairies, linked one of your articles on the thermite distraction. Not in the context of conventional explosives being used but of something more exotic.

    http://factsnotfairies.blogspot.com/2010/07/judge-approves-712-million-911.html

    If I remember correctly, I think you have said that the use of anything other than conventional demolition techniques would have been risky but that with evidence destroyed and no investigation you are open to the idea of possibly the use of other explosives.

    I tend to gravitate towards the video and photo ‘evidence’ that show anomalies not seen in the history of controlled demolitions. I suppose you could say that in ‘sanctioned’ demolitions everything that could be was removed from the blast area and so we don’t know the effects if they had not been.

    Anyway, WTC 1 & 2 were not close to being conventional demolitions in the sense of what we had seen before or since 9/11. Correct me if I’m mistaken about that.

    Any thoughts?

  5. Scott,

    For someone who doesn’t think a flame war would be productive, you’ve certainly left a long trail of torched bodies and buildings behind you. Your arrogance and hypocrisy seem to know no bounds. As you wrote to Darcy, “I chose [sic] the mediator [for the debate], that is not up for negociation [sic].”? Who do you think you are, Julius Fucking Caesar?

    I’m going to say the same thing three times in this message so that you will not be able to evade it or pretend any further that I haven’t told you this already:

    *** We are not standing in your way of gathering dust from people in New York City your own damn self. Stop whining about how we aren’t helping you do that, and do it yourself.***

    Why haven’t you ever responded publicly to the question I asked in the blog comment that John-Michael posted? The question was, how would a finding that conventional explosives were (also) used, help us get a new investigation? [it’s not an exact quote but it’s close enough]

    This is not an abstract debate, as if you didn’t know, and I’m saying this to all your followers, too: The precise manner or mechanism of the explosive demolition of the World Trade Center is irrelevant to the fact that it was an inside job.

    Your bizarre one-man crusade to publicly accuse me of treason makes you simply look off your rocker to anyone who knows me, and to most people who are capable of understanding the nanothermite paper.

    ***We are not standing in your way of gathering dust from people in New York City your own damn self. Stop whining about how we aren’t helping you do that, and do it yourself.***

    Even if we had dust we that we thought we could afford to give you, in at least two cases the evidence has been tampered with by someone who is obviously working to cover up what happened. This happened to an envelope in the mail, about which we have complained to the US postmaster (to no avail, of course). In another case, a red-gray chip that had been mounted on a microscope in an overseas lab and visually identified, mysteriously disappeared before any photographs had been taken of it.

    Given what the uncontroverted evidence reported in our paper, and the interference that is obviously being directed by “security” services that has been happening, there would be no way to get you any dust without running the risk of additional interference. Knowing you, you would probably publicly blame us for that interference.

    Harrit et al. examined the dust without even knowing what exactly to look for, and we found an exotic energetic material that has no business being there, no commercial application or source that is known to have actually sold the material for use anywhere as of September 2001 (or since then), and the paper has met with no serious criticism whatsoever (certainly no peer-reviewed published criticism). *Our findings unequivocally support the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job better than any finding of conventional high explosives would do!* That NIST after all this time continues to ignore the “nano” part of “nanothermite” is good evidence that we are precisely on point.

    The question of precisely which explosives were used to bring down the towers is all but irrelevant. Even if Al Qaeda had managed to obtain explosives and use them to bring down the towers, that is something that a serious investigation would have brought to light, and something that we would all want to know. THAT is why we keep calling upon NIST to perform such tests.

    If conventional high explosives residues were found in the dust, and authorities were somehow forced to answer for them (and how would we force them?!), they would probably just speculate that al Qaeda somehow stole the explosives from a warehouse, apologize for getting the nature of the destruction wrong, and state or imply that there is still no doubt that Al Qaeda was behind it. So your approach would not help the movement one bit, even if PETN or other such residues were found.

    Funny how neither you nor any of your brilliant followers have thought of this.

    Suppose that no one of us had ever been able to obtain and test any WTC dust. Did we really have any requirement to go further than all the arguments we already had at our disposal? What reason did we have to doubt that the World Trade Center was brought down by explosives in the first place? If you really agree with that, you should get behind all the efforts to get a new investigation performed according to standard investigative procedures, and stop sniping at people who have done much more work than you’ve ever bothered to do.

    ***We are not standing in your way of gathering dust from people in New York City your own damn self. Stop whining about how we aren’t helping you do that, and do it yourself.***

    I will try to find the time to respond in writing to the most important of your incorrect statements, wild presumptions, and ad hominems, but for now the idea of a live debate with you is just too distasteful. You are one of the most unpleasant people I have ever had to deal with. You continue to show your lack of integrity at every opportunity with your once again posting private emails. Because of that, I have to try and triple-check everything I would write to you whether privately or not. I would only want to deal thoroughly with all your bullshit ONCE. I would need time to prepare for whatever form of debate I might eventually engage in with you. I have a family, work full-time, and am taking an online career-related education program as well. So back the fuck off and stop publicly attributing the worst possible motive to everything anyone on my side says or does, or doesn’t do.

    And that goes for Scott’s ditto-head followers. Stop nodding sagely at this demogogue. Exercise some EVEN-HANDED critical thinking for a change, or better still, do something to advance the investigation. Sitting around clapping for Scott isn’t doing shit in that regard.

    Gregg Roberts

  6. Kenny:

    (you might want to check out a discussion I am having with SanderO on another thread about the demolition sequence… he seems to think the “crush down” theory is valid.. it starts somewhere around here…

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/strange-bedfellows-ae911truth-the-drone-industry-and-dwain-deets/#comment-18765 )

    I just can’t imagine that someone would take such a massive risk using something untested in a major demolition project like this for numbers of reasons.

    1. if something went wrong, the ENTIRE Global War on Terror is kaput…
    2. if something went wrong they all go to prison for the rest of their lives
    3. if something went wrong, then the Twin Towers would STILL have to be demoed and they would be half collapsed which would make that process take years and years at costs of billions of dollars.

    I mean there are a litany of other reasons, but ultimately the question comes up… “why?”

    Why would they want to use something other than what they are familiar with and what they know is going to do the job in a CONTROLLED manner?

    Why take that risk?

    They knew that the scene would be on lockdown after the demolition so that NO ONE could gain entrance…

    they knew that THEY would be in charge of the clean-up (CDI) and that they would remove the steel… ship it off to be melted without ANYONE really studying it too closely…

    they KNEW that there would be a flimsey “investigation” run by the same guy who “investigated” the Oklahoma City bombing building…

    and they also knew that it would look so different than other demolitions, that they could maintain control of the story for most people….

    after all, the also KNEW they controlled the media.

    So why not use conventional methods that are proven to work?

    Now, that being said… I am not opposed to testing for other materials that could have been used.

    But the burdon there is that whatever theory is presented, there MUST be a logical hypothesis of how the material was used to cause the demolition…

    this is where Steven Jones’ “nanothermite” hypothesis falls apart.

    a layer of “nanothermite paint” 1/64th of an inch thick, is NOT going to demo a steel column that is 5 feet by 3 feet of 5″ thick structural steel…. it’s not going to happen… and it CERTAINLY isn’t going to happen fast enough to demo 10 floors per second.

    Now, I did see the leading propanant of the “mini nukes” theory debate Steven Jones once.

    Interestingly, that guy tried to ask Jones twice why he hadn’t tested for residues of high explosives and TWICE Jones deliberately avoided answering the question.

    Now, as far as the anomalies are concerned…

    Yes, there are slight differences, but one thing that people aren’t paying enough attention to is something that I brought up in an article I called “Smoke and Dust”

    look at this picture comparison between an known Top Down demolition and the South Tower “collapse”

    Billowing clouds of lighter colored smoke and dust under darker, larger clouds.

    What you are looking at is the white PETN of the det cord pulverizing the floor systems, and the darker colored RDX smoke which takes out the columns just afterward…

    AND that pattern continues all the way down…

    now take a look at the moment the det cord ignites on the next floor…

    the reason you don’t actually see it in the Twin Towers is because the facade of the exterior columns is still in place.

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/smoke-and-dust/

    Yes, there are slight differences between what happened on 911 to the Towers and the standard controlled demolition… but that is how they wanted it, for various reasons.

    I would be more than happy to entertain other explosive mechanisms but just like in any criminal investigation, my first instinct would be to test for the residues of high explosives….

    that should have been NIST’s first test and FEMA’s and the 911 Commission’s….

    and it should have been the Truth Movement’s as well, and it would have happened by now, were it not for Steven Jones and his thermite saga.

  7. Mr. Roberts:

    Well well… here you are at last full of spite and ad homimem attacks.

    I have to give you this much, you did a good job managing Jim Hoffman’s “believe the Official Story of the Pentagon” campaign. You and your’s did a wonderful job making sure that Truth advocates stopped questioning what struck the Pentagon…..

    but I’m sorry… I can’t let you have this one.

    “The question of precisely which explosives were used to bring down the towers is all but irrelevant.”

    Actually it’s not. You see, according to the Harrit et al paper (that YOU SAY I just don’t understand) they DO NOT CONCLUDE that the “thermetic material” is a high explosive. They say it COULD be and that it burns at a rapid rate… but even Jones himself in the paper (and you as well, since you helped right it) states that what they found may be nothing more than parts of a ELECTRIC MATCH (10 tons of unexploded electric match heads? comeon now…)

    Now, let me explain ONCE more (like I did in the emails between Jones, you, and myself YEARS AGO) why finding explosive residue in that dust would make a difference….

    because going to a States Attorney General with actual explosive residue found in that dust (in the massive quantities that would have been needed to pulverize 220 concrete floor systems) would be bringing actual NEW EVIDENCE to their attention, rather than bringing them a few little “paint chips” (nanothermite paint chips or not) and claiming to have found “the smoking gun”

    do you see what I am saying?

    One is actual EVIDENCE and the other is a distraction.

    Now, I belong to a group of people called the Truth Movement and what we are looking for is … THE TRUTH… about what happened to those buidlings on 911.

    The TRUTH means that we run the tests and we explore the possibilities until those possibilities are proven RIGHT or proven WRONG…

    we don’t just stop with the BYU bought and paid for “nanothermite paper” and say “Well, shit… that’s ENOUGH FOR ME!”

    You see, that isn’t an investigation… that is propaganda.

    Kind of like the propaganda of your little staged reading of the CDI insider who came out and tried to help convince people that det cord didn’t need to be used in a controlled demolition.

    You know, he didn’t even dismiss Blanchard’s ridicualous claim that “miles and miles of det cord” would be laying around after the demolition… because it would have been BLOWN UP DURING THE DEMOLITION…

    Now, it is odd that someone who supposedly spent all that time testing for the “nanothermite” would suddenly be saying that it isn’t important that we know HOW they demoed those buildings… which you repeat OVER AND OVER AGAIN in your one comment…

    here you are saying it again…

    “The precise manner or mechanism of the explosive demolition of the World Trade Center is irrelevant to the fact that it was an inside job”

    odd isn’t it?

    Let me tell you something about that email…

    Did I publish the part where Darcy Wearing tried to tell me he was forwarding the email to himself over and over as he did the research to answer my questions… just to find out that I can use the source button on the incoming email and see that he was actually forwarding back and forth to his same email that was being opened IN TWO SEPERATE COUNTRIES?

    One source was his location… one source was YOUR location. Which means you were probably helping write his responses to me in those first emails and it means that he didn’t tell me the complete truth, now doesn’t it?

    Did I publish that part? Did I publish the part where he was accusing me of being disinfo… right up until he agreed with me and promised to revise his article with the corrections that I suggested?

    No I didn’t publish all that.

    But yes, I did publish his OFFER to have me debate YOU… which according to him, YOU HAD ACCEPTED… and even, as far as I can tell, suggested it to him (since I had not mentioned it in that email exchange)

    “And that goes for Scott’s ditto-head followers.”

    Don’t insult the readers here. Keep leveling your attacks at me. They clearly have more common sense and decorum than you do. For one, they actually CARE about finding out what was used to bring down the Twin Towers… and they certainly have enough common sense to know it does make a difference in our unofficial investigation.

    I mean the readers here wouldn’t make such a ridiculous comment such as this one…

    “If conventional high explosives residues were found in the dust, and authorities were somehow forced to answer for them (and how would we force them?!), they would probably just speculate that al Qaeda somehow stole the explosives from a warehouse, apologize for getting the nature of the destruction wrong, and state or imply that there is still no doubt that Al Qaeda was behind it. So your approach would not help the movement one bit, even if PETN or other such residues were found.” “Gregg” Roberts

    Do you actually think that if the “official story” changed so much as to then suggest that “al Qaeda” rigged and prepped the Twin Towers and Building 7 for explosive demolition, that the mass of the people of this country would BUY THAT SHIT?

    Is that your answer? If we find explosive residue then the government will just say “opps” and that will be it?

    I mean …. really? is that what you are trying to say?

    Is THAT what you call… “EVEN-HANDED critical thinking”…?

    Whatever happened to the excuse you gave me years ago when you claimed that you didn’t want to test for high explosive residue because if we did and it wasn’t there it would look bad for the movement?

    forgot that one?

    What you are doing, Mr. Roberts, is a variation of the old Jim Hoffman bullshit line that we should stop talking about what hit the Pentagon because those evil-doers are deliberately withholding all those videos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon just to use on us once we start making some headway.

    You are trying to undermine yet another valid course of investigation by suggesting the resulting spin from the opposition would render it meaningless.

    This is NOT something that the Truth movement is about. What you are suggesting to tailoring our investigation to the POLITICS of the envirnment…

    that is NOT an investigation, sir. That is spin. there is a difference.

    As far as you being a “traitor” is concerned…

    I didn’t say that.

    What I think is that you are hired to perform a task. Whether or not you actually BELIEVE that 9/11 was an inside job is meaningless to your task.

    Your task, Mr. Roberts, your occupation… “… undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity”

    “[W]e suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.” (Page 219.) Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein

    That doesn’t make you a “traitor” Mr. Roberts… it makes you something else entirely.

    Personally, I know what you are “Gregg”… you’re a spin doctor… someone who thinks that you are smarter than the “Truthers’ you have been hired to mislead.

    Fact is, you aren’t…and you know it. and THAT is why you won’t live up to your own suggestiion that we have ourselves a little debate… I mean, you may be smarter than me, but in the end, you are handicapped by your material, aren’t you? because you know your silly “nanothermite paint” theory won’t hold up under the light of day, even against someone like me. And that threatens your entire program, doesn’t it Mr. Roberts? I mean, you had to know this day was coming. You had to know that eventually the people of this movement would see through your manipulations with Jim Hoffman and now with AE911Truth…

    Now, it would be nice if next time you decided to chat a while, you would maintain a sense of civility at least toward the other readers here. They are dedicated to what they do and in case you haven’t noticed, most of them disagree with me all the time… so they are not “ditto heads”

    and yes… your co-worker is a jackass if he thinks the details of this investigation are not relevant and he needs you to answer his emails…

    (but we can all see where he got the “irrelevant” spin … he got it from you… I thank you for that)

    you come on back now, you here?

    (by the way… are you related to the “Greg” Roberts that used to be the vice president of L-3 Communications Systems East?)

  8. oh… let me answer your question, Mr. Roberts since I am here…

    “Why haven’t you ever responded publicly to the question I asked in the blog comment that John-Michael posted? The question was, how would a finding that conventional explosives were (also) used, help us get a new investigation?”

    (by the way I don’t typically read (JM’s?) blog so I didn’t know you had responded with a question to me)

    The answer is rather simple…

    If you find residual traces of high explosives in debris from an “collapsed” building or some other such destruction, that was previously determined to have NOT been caused by high explosives… (like NIST and the FEMA reports) … then by law there MUST be a new criminal investigation.

    It would ALSO go to show even more mistakes in the NIST report and FURTHER undermine their credibility in the eyes of the general public.

    But in the end, sir, it goes mainly to our desire to know the TRUTH about what happened, and how they did it.

    For example… you and yours seem determined to keep pushing the “super secret military grade nanothermite” that “only” the military can get their hands on and therefore it pretty much is a closed loop as far as any further investigation is concerned…

    however… as you well know, if it were commericial grade explosives used in the demoliton industry… well hell, that would open up an ENTIRELY different path of investigation, now wouldn’t it?

    I mean hell, it might even INCLUDE the company that your last guest, Tom Sullivan, worked for….

    you know,… the guys who were in charge of cleaning up the site… owned by a guy who admitted he called friends in lower Manhattan while the Towers were still standing and told them they would be coming down… the SAME guy who was the SOURCE for the two excuses given by NIST as to why they didn’t check for explosive residues in the dust from Ground Zero…

    you know… THAT guy….

  9. uhhh… and one more thing…

    “*** We are not standing in your way of gathering dust from people in New York City your own damn self. Stop whining about how we aren’t helping you do that, and do it yourself.***”

    well, now… you actually HAVE several samples AND you have access to labs like those at BYU (where Jones is a professor emeritus)…

    PLUS … you yourself stated that these tests SHOULD be run in your “nanothermite” paper….

    so in point of fact…. YOU could very easily run these tests, couldn’t you?

    but like NIST… you won’t

    is that “whinning” or is that simply pointing out that you and yours don’t have the slightest interest in finding out how these buildings were brought down (something that you clearly stated several times in the comment above)?

    what I am actually hoping for is to get those who already have the material to see the need to send samples off to labs themselves… you see that way I don’t have to sell off my meager possessions in order to pay for a bus ticket to get to New York and start going door to door asking people if they have samples of the stuff so I can send them off and then live in a cardboard box while I wait for the results.

    You see, it’s the IDEA that I am trying to get across to people, the IDEA that this is something that we should do… and that is exactly what you don’t want

  10. Cass Sunstein promised us this would happen. Mindless attacks on anybody and everybody in the TM. Your agenda is very clear and your attack on nano-thermite is right out of the JREF playbook.

    Your claim to be a Truther is hilarious. You are about as subtle as a Mack truck.

  11. All this time that Scott has been talking about Greg Roberts (or is it Gregg Roberts?).. I was under the impression that Roberts was at least an intelligent person, but Roberts has considerably lowered his own IQ status my opinion….. his childish insults are….. sloppy attempts to hang smoke screens…
    for him to hide behind….. didn’t work… we have seen better ……

  12. for those of you who aren’t familiar with Chris Sarns here, he popped up after I wrote my first article that condemned the misstatements made in Darcy Wearing’s …

    he said I was dead wrong … and now Wearing himself has posted a retraction… so I guess I wasn’t THAT wrong…

    his IP address just HAPPENS to be about 40 miles or so from the IP address of the other person who was forwarding me emails with Darcy Wearing’s name attached to them so it isn’t really that hard to figure out who Chris is and what he is doing here.

    But you can all go read some of his earlier personal attacks on me if you like…

    and of course he started off with the “det cord isn’t needed” meme (which seems to be the entire point of what Mr. Roberts has been trying to pass off recently)

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/11222/#comment-18308

    in the end he had this too say…

    “Excellent point. I find your theory very interesting.”

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/11222/#comment-18357

    Guess I am back to being a disinfo agent and JREFer… 🙂 man, that was quick… chris seems so fickle….

  13. You are hardly in a position to complain about personal attacks. 😉

    Detcord is not needed when a radio device such as the HiEx is used.

    On second thought, your theory of detcord being pulled thru every channel in every floor is a bit far fetched.

  14. Yeah, it might be “far fetched” if we didn’t all know that there were some 200+ electricians working at the Twin Towers prior to 9/11 doing a cable “upgrade” for the security company (same security company Bush’s cousin worked with)

    det cord IS needed because DET CORD was the high explosive used to pulverize the concrete floor systems and DET CORD is what ultimately melted the trusses and floorpans and created the molten metal and the “iron rich spheres”

  15. How do you KNOW that’s what happened?

    That’s a bit presumptuous dontchathink?

    You are assuming that detcord produces iron spheres. Please show a source that confirms that or stop making that claim.

  16. Neither one of us knows how the buildings were rigged or with what.

    Your claiming that you know only proves you are talking thru your hat.

    There is evidence of nano-thermite. This will have to be confirmed by independent parties but your dismissing it is rather JREFish.

  17. det cord with PETN creates an explosive reaction at over 8,000 meters per second (detonation wave velocity) and burns at over 7,057 deg. F.

    the steel in the buildings (trusses and floor pans) melt at about 2,750 deg. F…

    you do the math.

  18. You are just trying to come up with another source for the iron microspheres and coming up a bit short.

  19. So what? Show the source of “detcord producing iron microspheres”

  20. Do you think detcord is responsible for the melted beam from WTC 7?

  21. Come to think of it, detcord does not explode and destroy things. It just burns very rapidly.

  22. read the RJ Lee report… they aren’t just “iron”, there are many other materials in them and Thermite wouldn’t cause that…

    you see, that is the entire POINT of Steven Jones’ diversion… get people to look elsewhere for the cause of the iron RICH spheres…

    and here you are desperately trying to do the same thing.

    but we all know that “thermite” can’t demo 110 story buildings in 11 seconds flat nor can it propell 12 ton column sections 600 feet (nor can it “blow up” concrete floor systems…)

  23. “they aren’t just “iron”, there are many other materials in them and Thermite wouldn’t cause that”

    Really? Perhaps you could be specific? What exactly is in the spheres and how does that preclude nano-thermite?

  24. Chris Sarns says “Come to think of it, detcord does not explode and destroy things. It just burns very rapidly.”

    really? Det cord doesn’t explode huh?

    “Detonating cord is also employed directly in building demolition where thin concrete slabs need be broken via channels drilled parallel to the surface”

    any other statements you would like to make?

  25. though it isn’t my job to educate someone coming here clearly to disrupt the discussion, you MIGHT want to actually READ the RJ Lee Report…

    starting with page 16…

    “Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents”

    “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high
    heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel).”

    “In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic,
    bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens,
    and paint during the WTC Event. Combustion-related products are significant WTC Dust Markers, particularly
    if seen in combination. However, it is worth noting that fly ash and partially combusted products can occur in trace concentrations in ordinary building dusts, but not in the concentrations observed in WTC Dust.”

    http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf

  26. you see, the problem with you “nanothermite guys” is that you fail to realize that your little nanothermite paint on some of the steel beams wouldn’t have produced the MASSIVE heat signitures found in the dust…

    “WTC Dust, conversely, contains very little pristine organic fibrous or particulate material. Much of the organic or polymeric content of the WTC Dust has been heat hydrolyzed and partially consumed or burned. Therefore, a residual vesicular type of carbonaceous component persists in the WTC Dust. In addition to the vesicular carbon components, the high heat exposure of the WTC Dust has also created other morphologically specific varieties of particulate matter including spherical metallic, vesicular siliceous and spherical fly ash components. These types of particles are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent in typical office dust.” RJ Lee

    what happened was a massive heat exchange event that melted and vaporized many OTHER things, not just the HSLA steel trusses and floor pans but also the carpet, the ceiling tile… ect. ect.

    http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf

    you nanothermite paint does not nor will it ever explain that.

  27. Thank you for the info on detcord. I stand corrected.

    As for the iron spheres. I have read what you posted and there is nothing there to preclude thermite or nano-thermite.

    “Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel).”

    It speaks of the other components in the dust.

    You have not provided any evidence that detcord will produce iron spheres.

  28. You have admitted that there is no evidence of detcord so this is just supposition on your part.

  29. Scott said:

    ” and now Wearing himself has posted a retraction”

    Just to clarify, I wrote the article, at least the major portion of the body, yes, but…..I did not publish it though. In fact, the retraction was a team effort. I wrote up the first draft, and several others added comments to it, that’s what a team does.

    Scott said:

    ” After going back and forth with the author of that work, Darcy Wearing, he finally agreed to make corrections”.

    And we made them, we retracted the “cutter charge”, as far as the Hi Ex, we have never seen you bring ANY PROOF that this particular device uses det cord. I have called the company, and even they can’t give me a straight answer so please….if you have a link or any documentation what so ever, let us see it in your next response….or shut up. One more time, NO ONE SAID THAT HIEX WAS USED!!!!

    Scott’s sub-title said:

    “The Details are NEVER “Irrelevant” You Fucking Jackass”

    This just shows the intelligent level we are dealing with, a sub tittle with profanity, classless.
    What WE meant in the correction article, about det cord not being relevant “at this time” was, there isn’t even any acknowledgement from the government or the media (mainstream) yet about a demolition at all. When the day comes where there is talk, in the mainstream and the senate, that there were buildings demolished on 9/11, THEN it becomes relevant as part of the ” real investigation” and not chalked up as
    ” one more conspiracy theory”.
    Scott said:

    “STILL trying their best to continue to push the main point of their “Poorly Scripted Cognitive Infiltration”… which is as it has always been… “conventional high explosives were not used in the demolition of the Twin Towers”

    Scott, your theory is very interesting to me, I never even heard of it before last week, but……we have evidence of nanothermite….where is your evidence for conventional explosives???? If you take time to stop speculating, and creating ridiculous statements about cognitive infiltration, you would have the time to DO YOUR OWN TESTS!!!!

    Scott said:

    “In my final email exchange with Wearing, after he told me he was going to post this “correction”, I agreed to keep all email conversations between the two of us private…”

    Yes, and the reason I asked that is because you are known for posting private communications on your website to further your own agenda. You try to discredit people without knowing all the facts first. You posted a private e-mail of one of my colleges in the past, I did not want you to do this to me …but it looks like your a weasel that way, this is the ultimate “pussy” move.

    Scott, you speak about infiltration within the movement….one COULD suspect that you yourself, are the one who is trying to disrupt the movement, by causing “conflictions within”.

    Couldn’t they.

  30. “Yes, and the reason I asked that is because you are known for posting private communications on your website to further your own agenda”

    the only thing like that which I have posted… is the statement by your boss, “Gregg” Roberts, that he didn’t want to test for explosive residues because the results could be bad for our “PR”…

    that is the ONLY time I did that… and I did so because I thought it was important for people in the movement to know the kind of investigator “Gregg” Roberts was…

    in fact, it’s so important… I think I will post it again…

    ““However, our detractors could be counted on to do their best to use a negative result against us for P.R. purposes. They would say that we have a non-scientific belief, since a negative outcome from an experiment fails to shake it. Thus, the potential costs of doing what you’re proposing and coming up empty-handed, or worse, must be considered.” Gregg Roberts 2008”

  31. Now, the reason I mentioned your offer was not to embarass you, but to push the issue for a debate…

    did I publish the part of your emails where you lied to me and tried to tell me you were opening the emails in two seperate countries after forwarding them to yourself? Did I publish that part?

    Did I publish the part where you continually call me disinfo and then later admit that my points are correct and you were going to fix them?

    Did I publish that?

    no.

    would you like me too? Maybe you would like me to publish all of them so that Mr. Gage himself can read them if he happens across them? How would that be?

    fact is, I published one POLITE email of yours simply because you mentioned the debate…

    I didn’t do it to make you look bad. If you can’t figure that much out, I can’t help you.

  32. “the only thing like that which I have posted… is the statement by your boss, “Gregg” Roberts, ”

    Yet again more speculation, you call yourself a researcher, Gregg is NOT my boss. He is an associate of mine, and barley that.

    This just further proved you write things about people, without looking into them first.

    Logical Fallicey anyone?….. just visit Scott’s site.

  33. By the way have you found any dust yet, you have to leave your computer to do that.

  34. “If you take time to stop speculating, and creating ridiculous statements about cognitive infiltration, you would have the time to DO YOUR OWN TESTS!!!!” Darcy Wearing

    “We are not standing in your way of gathering dust from people in New York City your own damn self.” “Gregg” Roberts

    Do you just repeat everything “Gregg” says?

    Is that your job? What is that? Is that like the new talking point?

    what was the old one…. oh yeah, I remember…

    “The details of how the demolitions were accomplished are largely irrelevant at this point in time” Darcy Wearing

    now I wonder where you got THAT talking point…

    “The question of precisely which explosives were used to bring down the towers is all but irrelevant” “Gregg” Roberts

    “The precise manner or mechanism of the explosive demolition of the World Trade Center is irrelevant to the fact that it was an inside job.” “Gregg” Roberts

    Is that really your job? I mean, is that like a career or something? To take talking points from one guy and pass them off as your own thoughts to others on the internet… is that like something that actually pays? or is it more like, hero worship or something?

    frankly it’s kind of disturbing if you want to be honest about it.

  35. Now… here’s the big one Mr. Wearing…

    why did you chose to publish a “correction” article rather than FIXING the damn article you put up NOW THAT YOU KNOW IT HAS CLEAR MISTAKES IN IT?

    Your article is STILL UP THERE AND IS STILL FULL OF GLARING MISTAKES which make AE911Truth, Richard Gage, and the entire Truth Movement look bad…

    you KNOW these are mistakes, have ADMITED they are mistakes, and yet THERE THEY ARE… still up on the front page of AE911Truth and still with Richard Gage’s name attached to YOUR MISTAKES

  36. until you have fixed those mistakes YOU MADE…

    you don’t deserve to be heard on a real Truth Site…

    keep your flamewar to yourself and go back to regurgitating “Gregg” Roberts’ “PR” elsewhere…

    cus you are banned here till you fix that damn article with Gage’s name attached to it.

    how dare you leave that shit up when you know it is flawed and making Richard Gage look bad.

  37. for those of you who don’t know, Mr. Wearing here, after multiple emails, finally admited there were serious problems with his article they posted on the front of AE911Truth and emailed out to the entire mailing list.

    He did in fact post a correction article (the one where he claims “details don’t matter”) but that correction was NOT mailed out to the members of AE911Truth…

    AND the original article is still up on the front page, to this day, COMPLETE with multiple mistakes and still with Richard Gage’s name attached to it.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/315-explosive-evidence-at-wtc-cited-by-former-cdi-employee.html

    that is NOT satisfactory

    and I will NOT allow him to engage in some kind of flamewar here while his admitted discredited work is still up and still being used by debunkers to make Richard Gage and AE911Truth look bad.

    especially since all he is doing is parroting “Gregg” Roberts’ talking points.

  38. oh yeah, and tell your boss that there are still some members of the Truth community that can see through his “PR” and want to find out the “details” of what really happened.

    Some of us still think getting to the Truth is still VERY relevant, you fucking jackass.

  39. “Yet again more speculation, you call yourself a researcher, Gregg is NOT my boss. He is an associate of mine, and barley that.” Darcy Wearing

    yeah, you got me there Darcy…

    he’s just the guy who tells you what to say, helps you write your flawed articles, and opens your emails and helps you answer them…

    but that doesn’t mean he is your “boss”… got me there.

  40. glad he is gone… ….. 🙂

  41. You phony mellow dramatic outrage is transparent. It’s the same crap I have seen at JREF. Nitpick and babble, toil and trouble. You have already revealed yourself as the infiltrator you are claiming else is. You may be fooling a few impressionable fools but your style and tactics are those of a JREFer and anyone with a functioning brain can see right thru you.. Calling Steven Jones and nano-thermite disinfo is a government sponsored attack.

    Thank you so much for letting us know we are “over the target”.

    Peace and Love 😉

    C

  42. “JREF” , “JREF”, “JREF”… you keep spouting that “JREF” line…

    now who else kept spouting that “JREF” line… hmmm?

    Oh yeah, that was “keenan” over at WCTdemolition site… he kept using the term “JREF” as well… and “disinfo agent” and all those lovely ad hominems…

    http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2857

    But you know something funny about Keenan at WTCdemolition?

    He called me a “JREF” (er?) (whatever that means) for trying to say that Steven Jones might be trying to distract us with this “nanothermite” crap…

    he also said I was a “JREF” (er?) for implying Jones was “guilty by association” with “Gregg” Roberts and the proven disinfo guy Jim Hoffman…

    yet funny thing is… Keenan himself said the exact same thing just a few years ago… now isn’t that funny?

    Keenan wrote this in 2007 in an article titled “What’s up with Prof. Jones joining forces with disinfo king extraordinaire Jim Hoffman?”:

    “Stephen Jones is also ideally positioned to fill another role: the creation of an overly narrow demolition theory (relying solely on weak evidence of thermate/thermite) that can be easily debunked, while serving to spoil any inquiry into a more insidious possibility and denouncer of anyone who dared to question the veracity of that narrow demolition theory.”

    “This has been bugging me for a while. After the split up of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth organization, which seems to have been precipitated by the falling out between Prof Steven Jones and Prof Jim Fezter, Prof Jones joined Jim Hoffman in founding a new organization called Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, with a new web site http://stj911.org that features Jim Hoffman’s disinformation about the Pentagon attack, containing only cherry-picked evidence and other dishonest arguments by Hoffman, but none of the contrary evidence (Jones used to unequivocally dispute the official story of AA77 hitting the Pentagon). What’s up with that?”

    ” What do you think of Professor Jones? Is he just an honest but naive person who just isn’t able to understand the machinations of these skilled, manipulative, disinfo agents such as Hoffman? Or is there more going on with Prof. Jones than meets the eye?”</

    Well, I think we should always be wary when a “leader” of our movement tries to lead us down a very narrow path

    wow… “keenan” accused ME of being a “disinfo JREF shill” for calling out Steven Jones… when he himself was doing it, with far less evidence years ago….

    http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/28

    But if you read some of the other comments, it seems that at least some of the other readers don’t buy Keenan’s BS…

    http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2857#comment-21884

    I guess it just goes to show it’s all a matter of timing, isn’t it “Chris”?

  43. “Calling Steven Jones and nano-thermite disinfo is a government sponsored attack”

    let me see, who else was claiming I was a “paid” government agent…

    oh yeah, that would be “Keenan” as well…

    http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2641#comment-19517

    luckily there are people at WTCdemolition that don’t stand for that kind of unsubstanciated slanderous ad hominem attacks and they were quick to set “Keenan” straight…

  44. and the word I think you were looking for is “melodramatic”

    it comes from “melodrama”

  45. “I guess it just goes to show it’s all a matter of timing, isn’t it “Chris”?”

    Indeed, it shows that you are both working for the PTB.

    JREFers love to be condescending. They like to point out spelling mistakes to show their superiority. I’m impressed with you adherence to the JREF playbook.

    I have no idea who Keenen is but he sounds like a real schmuck. 😉

  46. Scott,

    You badmouth Steven Jones but in reality, you haven’t got a fucking clue what he found. You are just making shit up. 😉

  47. Steven and Neils have PhD’s. Do you have one of those?

    They have been professors in their fields for 20 years. Neils has published in numerous journals. Perhaps you think you know more about physics and chemistry than they do. I think your ego exceeds your knowledge.

  48. You started your article with:

    “The Details are NEVER “Irrelevant” You Fucking Jackass”

    This is why I have responded in kind. You accuse others of what you are and who you are, an enemy of the Truth Movement.

    So banal and childish are your attacks on professionals like Neils Harrit that you deserve to be treated as you treat others. You are a joke.

  49. you know, I gave you a little hint “Keenan”… I was warning you that I am not going to stand for you tossing baseless accusations around like you were doing on WTCdemolition…

    I will not sit here and let you accuse me of being a paid shill “JREFer” with absolutely no evidence what-so-ever.

    gone

  50. Do you guys actually think this little formula of yours works? Name calling, obfuscation, appeal to authority…

    repeat

    is that all you are left with? I Guess “Gregg” shouldn’t have had Steven start talking about “earthquake weapons” at Richard’s press conference, huh?

    I mean, if he was your big diversion tool, why waste his credibility like that just to hurt Richard’s?

    You can keep attacking people like me all you want, but the truth is lots of Truth Advocates are “waking up” to your little “narrow path” scheme and frankly, we are tired of people who think they can lead us around by the nose… tell us what to say… tell us what to think…

    “Gregg’s” little team here has made his agenda perfectly clear at this point..

    The question of precisely which explosives were used to bring down the towers is all but irrelevant” “Gregg” Roberts

    talk about setting a “narrow path” for the investigation…

    Well, I think we should always be wary when a “leader” of our movement tries to lead us down a very narrow path

    what he has also made clear is the kind of people he has working with him. It’s too bad they have gotten into AE911Truth

  51. I was wondering how much of Sarns’ jackass-comments you were going to allow…. you have a lot of patience, Scott…. more than me…… 🙂

  52. thanks jan…

  53. Hey, Willy

    You’ve got some experience in theater, a way with words, and the truth behind you. Maybe you ought to write a movie about all this–reach more people.

    If you couldn’t market it here, you could shop it around off-shore. Sounded like Korea owes you something, and like some of the MSM there might not be bought off yet.

    Maybe you could even write a walk-through part for me–dress me up in combat boots, a loin cloth, shades, a shiny tin helmet, and have me carrying a pick and shovel over my shoulder. I’d get Dennis Hopper to coach me, but he up and died, damn it.

    Just a thought, but it’s still early–the day hasn’t messed with me too much yet.

    r ap

  54. Roy;

    I already started writing something about all of this – it connects the Global Free Market Wars and neoliberalism to all the false flag efforts that have been taking place recently.

    It just seems so overwhelming… so much to include. How could I do something explaining WHY they attacked us on 9/11 in order to fascilitate the neoliberal shift in America without talking about where it really started? I would have to go back to what REALLy happened to Nixon, why they got rid of him, and of course, the John Powell memo of 1971 and what that was in response to… back to JFK and what he was killed for… back to his firing of Allen Dulles and Johnson putting Dulles on the Warren Commission… hell, I would have to go back into the Truth about Vietnam, what got us in there.. and Eisenhower’s warning, the real history of the CIA, the “interventions” all over the world on behalf of corporate greed… Iran 1953, BP…. all that to tell the story of where we are now, led by a president who was born into CIA front groups and a father who served a criminal dictator like Suharto… then worked for another CIA front group himself…

    yes, I will do it. might as well. got nothing else to do with my time since “Gregg” doesn’t seem to want to debate his “nanothermite” story…

    it is too bad about Hooper though. Maybe I could get Tommy Lee Jones to help you out a bit. I always liked him as well…

    scott

  55. Yeah… I want to see that… you two in a lions cloth… walking over the country side….. 🙂

  56. Hey, Jan

    I’ve always pictured myself looking like Hulk Hogan, but my brother tells me I have the Hulkster and Willie Nelson mixed up.

    Either/or, Tommy Lee would be able to work with whichever one of us shows up, don’t you think?

    Here we go.

    r

  57. S. Creighton suggests that Gregg Roberts worked for L-3 communications (see above and http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/comment/reply/2857/21919). Before one does such heavy assertions one should do a minimum of researching, especially given that Gregg is spelled Gregg and not Greg like the person who worked for L-3. One needs two minutes on LinkedIn + one minutes to find [formerly L-3] Greg Roberts current company website (including photograph and short CV of Greg Roberts) http://www.seaspension.com/military/index.php/about-seaspension.

    S. Creighton claims elsewhere (http://empirestrikesblack.com/2010/05/niels-harrit-is-a-weasel-hes-the-back-stabbing-fredo-of-the-truth-family/ ) that the red/gray chips would have originated from the primary paint on the trusses, and that the spheres would have their origin in the steel of the trusses, which melted due to det-cord. S. Creigthon’s suggestion can be falsified. The truss paint contained inter alia strontium chromate (see Appendix B, NISTNCSTAR 1-6B), the chips do not contain strontium chromate. The steel used for the trusses was A 36 and A 242 steel (see NISTNCSTAR 1-3D). There is no Mg in the steel used for the trusses ((see NISTNCSTAR 1-3D), but there is Mg in iron rich spheres (see http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html)

    S. Creighton claims ““C-4″ which is a military grade high explosive that clearly isn’t used in the demolition industry whereas PETN and RDX are used in the industry commonly”. I am not an expert into such stuff like explosives but when one searches for C-4 one can learn that C-4 can be used in shaped charges, and for demolition purposes. I suggest that S. Creighton includes in his test [his !] for common explosives C 4 (and other plastic explosives) as well (even if the “demolition industry” uses other variants commonly). For example, they might have used untagged C-4, and triggered it with the nanothermite chips to get around the sniffer dogs and to “enhance” the effect of the C-4. (While I am wondering if there is any way to get with the det-cord proposed by S. Creighton around sniffer dogs; so if there was any det-cord used they would have been able to bring it in only in the very last days before 9-11, when the dogs were not longer working on “alert”, but this wasn’t a long enough time frame to prepare all the buildings for demolition.)

    I cannot help but to have the impression that S. Creighton tries to cause mistrust, and that he deliberately puts out unsupported claims in order to achieve this. Looks for me as if S. Creighton has a similar job as Judy Wood: S. Creighton = Judy Wood for people who had physics lessons in school.

  58. A. Dreger’s false staements, one at a time…

    FIRST:

    I simply ASKED Roberts if he was related to the “Greg” Roberts from L-3 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS EAST… I didn’t say he was the same man.. I said that he could be…

    HOWEVER… you sir are lying… THAT IS NOT THE SAME “Greg” Roberts that I was talking about from L-3 Communications Ssytems East…

    This is the quote from the “Greg” Roberts you found…

    “In 1998, Greg moved to St. Petersburg to work for Molex ETC and then L-3 Communications Scandia Technologies Division as their Director of Quality Assurance.”

    However, this is the Greg Roberts I am talking about…

    “Talon was designed specifically for users who are in remote locations to securely access classified networks over the Internet using our PCMCIA Talon card plugged into a commercial laptop or desktop,” said Greg Roberts, President and Chief Operating Officer of L-3 CS-East. “We look forward to the success of this field test by our TSA customer.” http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/computer-software-security/3986139-1.html

    The Greg Roberts I am talking about was President and Chief Operating officer of L-3 Communications Systems East in New York and other locations. Their main client is the NSA…

    Had your link been to the SAME Greg Roberts, I assume he would have included that little tidbit of information in his BIO…. ergo, it’s a DIFFERENT Greg Roberts….

    Since you are here to defend “Gregg’ Roberts, why don’t you inform my readers as to what “Gregg” Roberts did for a living prior to working with Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley and AE911Truth?

  59. Next false information from A. Dreger:

    “There is no Mg in the steel used for the trusses ((see NISTNCSTAR 1-3D), but there is Mg in iron rich spheres (see http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html)

    That link DOES NOT WORK… besides, it is to the USGA website NOT the official “fingerprint” of the Ground Zero Dust, the RJ Lee Report, which I link to SEVERAL TIMES…

    the early version is here…

    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11423437/httpwwwnyenvirolaworgWTC13020Liberty20StreetMike20Davis20LMDC2013020Liberty20DocumentsSignature20of20WTC20dustWTC20Dust20SignatureComposition20and20MorphologyFinalpdf

  60. Next false statement from A. Dreger: “The steel used for the trusses was A 36 and A 242 steel (see NISTNCSTAR 1-3D).”

    The trussses were NOT “A-36” structural steel…

    You see, it also says in the NIST Report the manufacturers switched the A-36 structural steel members of the trusses with a HSLA steel SIMILAR to a modern ASTM A-572 …

    check this…

    the sinch plates were still A-36, but that was it…

    Chemical composition of ASTM A-242 HSLA steel from NCSTAR:

    Chemical composition of ASTM A-572 HSLA steel from the NIST study

    and here is an entire paper on the subject…

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/sneak-peak-revised-demolition-theory-hypothesis/

    A. Dreger goes on to say…

    “There is no Mg in the steel used for the trusses ((see NISTNCSTAR 1-3D), but there is Mg in iron rich spheres”

    here is my question… if A. Dreger says there is Mg in the iron rich spheres, how does that mean thermite created them? Thermite does NOT produce Mg as a by product does it?

  61. A. Dreger then goes on to try and promote the “C-4” crap that Jones started pushing a while ago once he realized people were starting to figure out the BYU sponsored “nanothermite” distraction wasn’t holding up…

    again, by pushing “C-4” they are still trying to push the military side of the theory, just like “nanothermite” does…

    C-4 is used by the military and not by controlled demolition experts, C-4 is a clumsey tool whereas RDX linear shaped charges are more powerful and cleaner, det cord is certainly more controlable and the pure PETN is more powerful.

    A. Dreger tries to confuse the issue suggesting for some reason that someone could NOT have gotten PETN and det cord past sniffer dogs while I guess he is suggesting that C-4 could slide right past them.

    That is a ridiculous assumption.

    What A. Dreger if FAILING to tell you is that the SECURITY COMPANY ran a massive CABLE UPGRADE right up to the event of 911 in BOTH TOWERS…

    and that the Security company that was doing that… was the SAME security company that was in charge of handling the sniffer dogs….

  62. A. Dreger’s last childish attempt to undermine what I have been saying is to try and create a “guilt by association” falacy…

    “S. Creighton has a similar job as Judy Wood: S. Creighton = Judy Wood”

    aside from the fact that there is NOTHING that EVER connected me with Judy Wood and that I am simply pointing out the SERIOUS FLAWS in a certain paper posted on AE911Truth site (which is still up, uncorrected, and attached to Richard Gage’s name)

    He probably wishes he hadn’t mentioned Judy Wood…

    because you see, it’s not ME who was attached to Judy Wood for years… it was the creator of the “nanothermite” paper, Steven Jones… he was ALSO hooked up with Morgan Reynolds at the time, creator of the “no planes” theory, if I am not mistaken…

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

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/dr-jones-reanimates-the-corpse-of-the-dustification-lady-dr-judy-woods/

    not only did he get his start with those two disinfo agents… but then he took up with Jim Hoffman, a proven disinfo agent…. and then revamped the Judy Wood “earthquake weapons” discussion at Richard Gage’s press conference (in order to further embarass us all)

    so no… I am not the “Judy Wood” of this movement nor am I doing the same “work” as she is….

    you could figure that out if you asked one of her fans and someone WHO ACTUALLY WORKED WITH HER… Steven Jones…

    “In the time it took Dr. Jones to revive the ghost of Judy Wood and her “ground based Star Wars Technology” theory (read as “ray beams from space”) he could have taken that sample of Ground Zero dust in his hand and tested it for explosive residues, live at their press conference. In fact, he probably could have done it twice. But he would never do that. Instead, he cruised over to the luncheon and breathed life into the decaying corpse of Judy Woods’ sonic space beam theory at our expense.”

  63. Now, “A. Dreger”… go back, get together with your “Gregg” Roberts support group, put your pointy little heads together… and TRY again… cus this crap didn’t work.

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: