The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud

[BlueMoon5]

[quote="DrJones"] [quote]: Let me ask again-- what is your comment about the venue of this paper? published in the Environmentalist, a mainstream publication -- or do you deny that also? You seem to have skipped over my question to you about this point.

The Environmentalist appears to be a quality publication. I have spent considerable time reviewing it. I have no doubt that your paper was well done; however, I am unable to locate it under Top Stories, Politics, Climate, World News, Science, History, Business, Editorial,* Lifestyle, or in the archives dating back to 1997. When was it published, and what is its title (forgive me if you listed that in an earlier post)?
It may be that the title didn't refer directly to your 9/11 work, and that's why I couldn't find the article.

*An editorial entitled "Information Terrorists Hijack our Airwaves" has been deleted by the editors.

[Rob]

Bluemoon isn't interested in the science, physics or facts - just ad hominem attacks that are desperate attempts to keep his belief in the official story alive. Either that, or he/she is engaging in this debate for kicks. Either way... sad.

ad hominem attacks, huh? You mean like the one you post here? And oh, yes, haven't you been known to refer to some posters as having only "half a brain"?

Actually, by definition, an ad hominem attack can only occur if provided as proof of an assertion, eg. "That man is whatever, ergo his claim is invalid", much like your attempt to dismiss Dr. Jones paper due to the alleged reputation of the publisher. In this case, Flagg is not saying that your assertion is false because of your motivation or interest therein, he's just pointing out that you don't care about the science.

[Rob]

: Let me ask again-- what is your comment about the venue of this paper? published in the Environmentalist, a mainstream publication -- or do you deny that also? You seem to have skipped over my question to you about this point.

The Environmentalist appears to be a quality publication. I have spent considerable time reviewing it. I have no doubt that your paper was well done; however, I am unable to locate it under Top Stories, Politics, Climate, World News, Science, History, Business, Editorial,* Lifestyle, or in the archives dating back to 1997. When was it published, and what is its title (forgive me if you listed that in an earlier post)?
It may be that the title didn't refer directly to your 9/11 work, and that's why I couldn't find the article.

*An editorial entitled "Information Terrorists Hijack our Airwaves" has been deleted by the editors.

Did you mean the link Dr. Jones posted above? http://www.springerlink.com/content/0251-1088/29/1/

[Jason]

: Why don't you do us all a favor and read the research papers that proves the opposite of what you're claiming. K thnx bye.

That suggestion cuts both ways. Instead of limiting yourself to conspiracy sites/articles, why don't you expand your horizons (in an honest attempt to achieve balance) and look at some of the debunking sites?
Here are two places to start:

The 9/11 Forum: Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues, http://the911forum.freeforums.org/nanot ... -t214.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and

James Fetzer: Exposing Falsehoods an Revealing Truths, "Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?" http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05 ... o-911.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So far at the first link....there's been a fair amount of questions concerning the official story like lack of foundation damage at the Pentagon....don't know that it defends your paradigm if that is what you intended???

For example here is one of the links referred to as evidence at the 1st link you pointed out above -

http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic10.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whole slew of questions about the official story regarding WTC7.....

At your 2nd link the author attacks the evidence on thermite/nanothermite but states the following -

We do have visual evidence (videos) that strongly indicate to any discerning viewer that the Twin Towers did not come down by gravitational collapse. However, apart from that, we are still where we started – pursuing different inquiries into how and why the buildings fell the way they did. “Explosive nanothermite” is no firmer a theory than conventional explosives demolition, nuclear demolition, or directed free-energy technology; in fact, it is somewhat misleading and – for that reason alone – probably not the best horse for us to be betting on.

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05 ... o-911.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Perhaps you should review your links prior to utilizing them in effort to support your paradigm (official story)???

[BlueMoon5]

: Perhaps you should review your links prior to utilizing them in effort to support your paradigm (official story)???

I referred to the need for balance, being unfraid to give exposure to your position. "Truthers," however, are unwilling to do that. Every "Truther" post is a one-sided, typically biased (but not always) diatribe in support of government complicity. Whether your realize it or not, that practice substantially damages your credibility. Is there nothing in the 9/11 Commission's report that has merit? Were all the members of the Commission "paid liars," as one "Truther" claimed?

[Rob]

: Why don't you do us all a favor and read the research papers that proves the opposite of what you're claiming. K thnx bye.

That suggestion cuts both ways. Instead of limiting yourself to conspiracy sites/articles, why don't you expand your horizons (in an honest attempt to achieve balance) and look at some of the debunking sites?
Here are two places to start:

The 9/11 Forum: Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues, http://the911forum.freeforums.org/nanot ... -t214.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and

James Fetzer: Exposing Falsehoods an Revealing Truths, "Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?" http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05 ... o-911.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

: Perhaps you should review your links prior to utilizing them in effort to support your paradigm (official story)???

I referred to the need for balance, being unfraid to give exposure to your position. "Truthers," however, are unwilling to do that. Every "Truther" post is a one-sided, typically biased (but not always) diatribe in support of government complicity. Whether your realize it or not, that practice substantially damages your credibility.

"Look at the debunking sites"... "Here are two"... "being unafraid to give exposure to your position"... what a crock. In your haste to prove us wrong, you only read the title. #-o Just admit your gaffe and we'll move on.

[Rob]

At your 2nd link the author attacks the evidence on thermite/nanothermite but states the following -

We do have visual evidence (videos) that strongly indicate to any discerning viewer that the Twin Towers did not come down by gravitational collapse. However, apart from that, we are still where we started – pursuing different inquiries into how and why the buildings fell the way they did. “Explosive nanothermite” is no firmer a theory than conventional explosives demolition, nuclear demolition, or directed free-energy technology; in fact, it is somewhat misleading and – for that reason alone – probably not the best horse for us to be betting on.

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05 ... o-911.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Perhaps you should review your links prior to utilizing them in effort to support your paradigm (official story)???

Too funny, Jason. )

[natasha]

: Perhaps you should review your links prior to utilizing them in effort to support your paradigm (official story)???

I referred to the need for balance, being unfraid to give exposure to your position. "Truthers," however, are unwilling to do that. Every "Truther" post is a one-sided, typically biased (but not always) diatribe in support of government complicity. Whether your realize it or not, that practice substantially damages your credibility. Is there nothing in the 9/11 Commission's report that has merit? Were all the members of the Commission "paid liars," as one "Truther" claimed?

Not only where the members of the Commission "paid liars," but as Col. Flagg told me recently when I told him that there were just as many, if not more, experts who debunk the 9/11 conspiracy, that they are paid off by the government. So you see, those of us who have come to different conclusions are simply stupid, liars, or perhaps on the government pay off list.

I listened to a talk given by Elder Oaks at BYU (can't recall the year) on the BYU channel last Sunday a.m. The title of the talk, if anyone wants to take the time to read it, is "Sins and Mistakes". It's really a wonderful talk. One that while I was listening, I felt quilty of ever becoming "contentious". He said that "contention is always sin". Before there's any knee jerk reaction to that, I would really suggest reading the talk. You can google it by it's title. He even takes the time to discuss how our attitude and discussion should be in our public discourse. That should help all of us here. Thanks....

[Jason]

: Perhaps you should review your links prior to utilizing them in effort to support your paradigm (official story)???

I referred to the need for balance, being unfraid to give exposure to your position. "Truthers," however, are unwilling to do that. Every "Truther" post is a one-sided, typically biased (but not always) diatribe in support of government complicity. Whether your realize it or not, that practice substantially damages your credibility. Is there nothing in the 9/11 Commission's report that has merit? Were all the members of the Commission "paid liars," as one "Truther" claimed?

Look I spent 7 years in the United States Marine Corps risking my life for this government in lots of little nasty places around the globe (and had a secret security clearance as a result of my duties)....don't lecture me about diatribes on government complicity. You really should look in the mirror when you rattle on about credibility issues...

As for the 9/11 Commission report....you appear to have never studied the report itself let alone the history of the Commission's conception and accomplishments based on your comments. Before your spout off more ignorant nonsense I suggest you review the documentary 9/11 Press for Truth which specifically focuses on the 9/11 Commission as well as the report. They take one of the most even handed approaches I've seen in a 9/11 documentary and mainly focus on the victim's families as well as their call for an investigation into what really happened.....and the interactions with the 9/11 Commission. In my opinion, for whatever its worth, that would give you a better foundation to approach the discussion of the 9/11 Commission rather than just pulling websites from google and submitting them as evidence of your paradigm.




If you want a good overview of all of the events on 9/11 I suggest Zero: Investigation into 9/11

[BlueMoon5]

: NO, I did not agree with you. In the same post that I quoted the abstract for this paper (which you re-quoted back), I noted that in subsequent papers we demonstrated (or proved) the hypothesis of that paper! So no, I do not agree with you and find that you are either not a careful reader or a fellow who twists another's words... or even worse.

I responded to the statement you made at the end of your abstract: To better explain these data, as well as the unusual detection of 1,3 diphenylpropane, the presence of energetic nanocomposites in the pile at Ground Zero is hypothesized.

I didn't respond to your additional statement: . . .our subsequent papers put this hypothesis on very solid ground. The data in this paper are sound and not to be ignored.

Perhaps it's fair to say that you agreed with me for a time, inasmuch as an hypothesis is an assumption. Be that as it may, phrases such as "put this hypothesis on very solid ground"; and
"data in this paper are sound" fall short of conclusively proving your hypothesis. I'm far from alone in believing that. "T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer from both the space program and the chemical industry, decided to investigate its use (nanothermite) as an explosive. In addition to doing his own study, he has repeatedly written to leading 9/11 researchers who champion the use of nanothermite as the principal (if not exclusive) mechanism for bringing about the destruction of the Twin Towers, probing them on the capabilities of nanothermite. The replies he has received suggest that this is an issue they are unwilling to examine fully and openly". ("Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community," James Fetzer, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05 ... o-911.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Hightower told Richard Gage the following: "This paper offers no evidence to me that explosive velocities anywhere near that of TNT (22,600 fps) can be produced by the nanothermites as described and presented."

Fetzer observes: "So if nanothermite is to be the 'smoking gun' of 9/11, it would have had to been combined with some form of high-power explosives." Fetzer adds, "There are reasons to believe that the 9/11's nanothermite experts are actually aware of this problem." He then cites an interview with Niels Harrit, who said that the role of the red-gray chips retrieved from the dust is unknown.

"Truthers" tend to speak with absolute certitude. They have all the right answers. They will accommodate no other explanation for 9/11 than their own ("monopoly on truth" syndrome). I think that underscores the fragility of their position.

[BroJones]

Bluemoon -- I object again, and I have already replied to Mark Hightower about this issue (my response published at 911blogger -- did you read it??).

HOWEVER, you seem to be skirting the question I've asked twice before. Here it is again:

Let me ask again-- what is your comment about the venue of this paper? published in the Environmentalist, a mainstream publication -- or do you deny that also? You seem to have skipped over my question to you about this point.

Please READ the question posed already twice.
Happy reading (of the actual papers)!
DrJones

Are you avoiding this question, brother?

[BlueMoon5]

: Look I spent 7 years in the United States Marine Corps risking my life for this government in lots of little nasty places around the globe (and had a secret security clearance as a result of my duties)....don't lecture me about diatribes on government complicity. You really should look in the mirror when you rattle on about credibility issues...

I commend you for you service as a Marine. I spent two years in Germany in the U. S. Army at the height of the Berlin crisis. I was proud to serve my country. You? I have my doubts.

: As for the 9/11 Commission report....you appear to have never studied the report itself let alone the history of the Commission's conception and accomplishments based on your comments. Before your spout off more ignorant nonsense I suggest you review the documentary 9/11 Press for Truth which specifically focuses on the 9/11 Commission as well as the report. They take one of the most even handed approaches I've seen in a 9/11 documentary and mainly focus on the victim's families as well as their call for an investigation into what really happened.....and the interactions with the 9/11 Commission.

Thanks for the reference to 9/11 Press for Truth. I'm perfectly willing to look at it. As for finding out what "really happened," that will never happen. There will always be unanswerable questions--a circumstance that the "Truthers" fail to grasp, and upon which they are driven to feed endlessly.

: In my opinion, for whatever its worth, that would give you a better foundation to approach the discussion of the 9/11 Commission rather than just pulling websites from google and submitting them as evidence of your paradigm.

You don't do that sort of thing, do you? Naw. You meet face-to-face with civil/chemical/mechanical engineers and pick their brains. . .interview the authors of peer-reviewed journal articles. . .study building demolition dynamics under the tutelage of experts in academia. Oh, BTW, how did you find 9/11 Press for Truth? Did some googling of your own, did you?



[

[BlueMoon5]

Bluemoon -- I object again, and I have already replied to Mark Hightower about this issue (my response published at 911blogger -- did you read it??).

HOWEVER, you seem to be skirting the question I've asked twice before. Here it is again:

Let me ask again-- what is your comment about the venue of this paper? published in the Environmentalist, a mainstream publication -- or do you deny that also? You seem to have skipped over my question to you about this point.

Apparently, you have overlooked my post of today, 11:36 a.m. Your question is partially answered therein. Now that I have the link, I will respond in detail to your question.

[Jason]

Look I spent 7 years in the United States Marine Corps risking my life for this government in lots of little nasty places around the globe (and had a secret security clearance as a result of my duties)....don't lecture me about diatribes on government complicity. You really should look in the mirror when you rattle on about credibility issues...

I commend you for you service as a Marine. I spent two years in Germany in the U. S. Army at the height of the Berlin crisis. I was proud to serve my country. You? I have my doubts.

Nice...now back to personal attacks. I was honorably discharged and turned down nearly $30k re-enlistment bonus - tax free (in the Gulf at the time). I won't go into medals and accommodations as it gets pretty ridiculous at that point. Coming from an Army dog....it is a bit ironic!!! Had to throw that one in....LOL.

As for the 9/11 Commission report....you appear to have never studied the report itself let alone the history of the Commission's conception and accomplishments based on your comments. Before your spout off more ignorant nonsense I suggest you review the documentary 9/11 Press for Truth which specifically focuses on the 9/11 Commission as well as the report. They take one of the most even handed approaches I've seen in a 9/11 documentary and mainly focus on the victim's families as well as their call for an investigation into what really happened.....and the interactions with the 9/11 Commission.

Thanks for the reference to 9/11 Press for Truth. I'm perfectly willing to look at it. As for finding out what "really happened," that will never happen. There will always be unanswerable questions--a circumstance that the "Truthers" fail to grasp, and upon which they are driven to feed endlessly.

1st off....great it would help your knowledge foundation tremendously I think.

2nd (in bold and underline) - Why??? Are we talking questions like - Who did it? Or how much material down to the ounce was carted away from the WTCs?

: In my opinion, for whatever its worth, that would give you a better foundation to approach the discussion of the 9/11 Commission rather than just pulling websites from google and submitting them as evidence of your paradigm.

You don't do that sort of thing, do you? Naw. You meet face-to-face with civil/chemical/mechanical engineers and pick their brains. . .interview the authors of peer-reviewed journal articles. . .study building demolition dynamics under the tutelage of experts in academia. Oh, BTW, how did you find 9/11 Press for Truth? Did some googling of your own, did you?

I try to read through the material prior to sourcing it....seems wise doesn't it?

The video was highly recommended to me by a friend whom I regard quite highly. After viewing it I wholeheartedly agreed with his recommendation. There's a slew of documentaries on 9/11....one of my favorites is Zero which was posted above. They all seem to have their niche.

In terms of getting an understanding of what background you are coming from (what your paradigm looks like)....glad to see you have some service time under your belt....are you familiar with Operation Keelhaul? Operation Northwoods? CIA history following WWII up until the present - things like Operation AJAX, Operation Gladio, Operation Mockingbird, ZR/RIFLE program, MK-ULTRA, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Watchtower, Operation Cyclone, The Safari Club, Iran/Contra, BCCI, etc???

Just curious and it will help in understanding your foundation for your paradigm as well as being able to be more efficient and respond in a manner that saves us both a substantial amount of time and effort if we are serious about seeing each other's views for what they are worth - perhaps learning some in the process. Thank you!!!

[Rob]

He then cites an interview with Niels Harrit, who said that the role of the red-gray chips retrieved from the dust is unknown.

Did he? That sounds a little different from what he says here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ&t=5330 (the "t=5330" parameter may not be exactly right; his comments start about the 1h 33m mark)

EDIT: At around 1h 38m, he says almost exactly what you said he did, however, he goes on to say that it is obvious that both incendiaries and explosives were used in a controlled demolition to bring the towers down.

[pjbrownie]

I seldom weigh into these sorts of debates, but since for many years, I wholeheartedly believed in the official story, but I am now in a questioning mode. Given that it's the tenth anniversary, I have devoted quite some time to this lately, and it has helped cement my understanding that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Sorry, Bluemoon, but the belief and debate are shifting away from your position. The strongest argument you have, and I will give you, are the circumstantial cases that people make as to who did the demolition and the conclusions people draw. I don't see any hard proof yet. I have a hard time believing that Islamic fundamentalists got into the building and planting the demolition devices. However, it's just as plausible that Larry Silverstein with a tip-off that there would be an attempt at the WTC, and probably moreso, than Dick Cheney and George Bush, which I think is a sticking point to many Americans. It IS clear that there is coverup of the truth, whatever that truth may be. For truthers to continue to draw conclusions based on circumstantial evidence is conspiracy theorizing. It may be helpful in putting together an intial case, which I think they have in some arenas, but you have to have have proof for an indictment. I think this is where the debunkers have their best case, and it hurts the truther case. I would like to see truthers be disciplined like Richard Gage, admit what we know for sure, and demand further investigations to get at the rest of it. Focus on one thing at a time, the case for the demolition of the buildings is the best, because it is backed up by science. Here are some other things to help the fence-sitters among us, the lurkers, and the like.

1) This is not a liberal conspiracy. I was trapped by this fallacy for years. This was a Michael Moore thing, supposedly. It's true that this began for the most part, as liberals conspiring, but it has moved far beyond that. It has moved beyond being a far right (bad term) libertarian conspiracy. It has moved into the realm of architects, engineers, pilots, firefighters, and physicists who say that based on their expertise, the official story does not add up. This is NOT a conspiracy theory, but evidence of a cover-up.

2) Somehow if it IS true, the implications are too horrific to contemplate. I think people really get tripped up here. I think Glenn Beck is in this category. People simply do NOT want to believe that their government could do such a thing. Well, I don't think have to lead them to this conclusion . . . yet. There are other plausible explanations, such as the landlord placing the incendiary devices with help from SOME in the government. If some in the government were involved, this goes back farther than Cheney and Bush, since it only happened 9 months into his administration. The term "plausible deniability" comes to mind. There may be rogue elements in our government. This may have been a covert CIA opp. Whoever was involved, mind you, there was a need for high tech explosives that would be very difficult to Al Qaeda to acquire. I think the focus needs to be on how the buildings came down, and on the cover-up of that fact. Once this is mainstream and understood far and wide, we can then pursue the culprits.

3) The buildings did come down by controlled demolition. This is no longer a theory. My physicist brother tells me this: the mass of the buildings and the speed of the fall indicate that there was no potential energy in the structures, including building 7. What that means is that the potential energy had to be removed. If the building fell on its own due to weakening steel from fires (which is still possible), there would still have to be a transference of energy from kinetic to potential to kinetic again, slowing down not only the timing of the process, but makes its collapse more asymmetrical in nature. The only way to remove the potential energy is to destroy the structure points simultaneously. With the WTC, it appears that this happened with a non-conventional explosive element that exploded the structure outward starting from the top. With WTC 7, this appears to be a more conventional demolition. The destruction of these buildings by fire only goes against basic physics. It is simply impossible.

4) The presence of nano-thermite was the final nail in the coffin for me. The red/gray chips that Jones tested had a calorometric signature similar to known thermetic reactions. The proven presence of thermite does not preclude other incendiaries were used. Seems like the red paint chips also present were not isolated in the first sample, so it has some problems in that the red paint was not as thoroughly isolated from the red/gray chips in the first sample. It is also a small sample and needs to be subjected to further investigation by other scientists.

5) Examples of other buildings do this or that do not interest me much. Show me how THESE buildings fell in a manner consistent with known science and that is a conversation starter. Telling me some building collapsed in Chumbawumba from an office fire doesn't help. It isn't the same structure, probably not the same size (very unlikely), and not even in the same manner (with explosive pyroplastic clouds). Let's add the jet kerosene into the mix and talk about THESE buildings.

6) Leave the Pentagon and Shanksville alone, for now. Most of the evidence I've seen, particularly on the Pentagon rely on a smattering of photographic evidence. The photos themselves are too hard to see to draw any conclusions, one way or the other. It is too reliant upon witness testimony that could have been omitted accidentally. I agree that there is very little evidence of a 727, but I think it is still possible given that we don't have a very good record on the exact day. It is, in effect, too circumstantial for me at this point. Focus on New York.

7) Focus on the poor investigation by NIST. They did very little to explain how those planes brought down those buildings, including WT7, which they conclude is a mystery at best, caused by office fires at least, with no explanation of HOW. We need another panel that is more independent to study what little evidence there is left--since most of it has been destroyed or confiscated.

[Army Of Truth]

You don't know the quantity of each chemical/gas found, nor do you know anything about the possible existence of other, unidentified chemicals/gases. Consequently, you cannot conclude with certainty that the source of the chemicals/gases was thermite. I understand your eagerness to believe that the source was thermite, but you are speculating at best.

YOU cannot conclude with certainty that the source of the chemicals/gases was from FIRES or GRAVITY. I understand your eagerness to BELIEVE that the source was 'fires' or even gravity, but you are HYPOTHESIZING and SPECULATING and THEORIZING at BEST!!!

:ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause:

[Army Of Truth]

Pentagon Hole & Tomahawk hole.jpg (56.07 KiB) Viewed 1300 times

pentagon hole pre-collapse 1.jpg (74.02 KiB) Viewed 1300 times

Again, here are PICTURES of EVIDENCE of what DID NOT hit the Pentagon. Please SHOW and EXPLAIN to me HOW exactly a Boeing 757 commercial jetliner with a wingspan of 125 ft and TWO 9-fee tall Rolls Royce RB211 steel engines DISAPPEARED into this tiny 16-feet wide hole.

Please, after 5 years of pleading with all you "official law-of-physics-breaking magical conspiracy theory" people...

SHOW ME ANY EVIDENCE OF THE PLANE???!!!!

[BroJones]

Bluemoon wrote, about the paper in the mainstream pub Environmentalist,

Now that I have the link, I will respond in detail to your question.

good -- I await your detailed response then.


Army of truth -- you should read the papers re: Pentagon by Dr. Frank Legge if you really want to understand the Pentagon issue (what hit it?) -- have you read any of these?

Very good comments by Jason and pjbrownie. Focussing on this point:

[snip]
2) Somehow if it IS true, the implications are too horrific to contemplate. I think people really get tripped up here. I think Glenn Beck is in this category. People simply do NOT want to believe that their government could do such a thing.

Right -- this is the "Big Lie" principle -- as enunciated by Hitler and others -- "There is a certain force of CREDIBILITY IN THE BIG LIE" he wrote in Mein Kampf. And he and other political leaders have used it ever since. You mentioned several of these instances, Jason. Amalackiah in the Book used this principle when the stabbing of the king of the Lamanites was blamed on servants of the king (rather than his servants).


Essentially NO American wanted to believe their own gov't could turn off the air defenses that fateful day... and yet, there were NO AIR DEFENSES. Sec'y Mineta's testimony explains why in an important case, that of the plane incoming towards the Pentagon. It was being tracked, but NOTHING was done to prevent these deaths that soon occurred! not even a warning to evacuate the Pentagon.

[pjbrownie]

I think one thing we all need to realize is how much burden of proof do we need to instigate a new investigation or at least declare the official story incomplete. We have circumstantial evidence, physics and architecture, proof of explosives, and photographic evidence that indicate that we may not have the whole story. The burden of proof isn't to ensure that the detractors from the official story prove CONCLUSIVELY, only that they raise enough questions to instigate a new investigation or declare the official story incomplete.

I think even Bluemoon can agree to this. And by the way, I'm always open to a discussion of how the buildings fell by fire. I'm open to being persuaded by sound science, and changing my mind. I don't have skin in this game. If there is a way to get to the planes doing it and Islamists being the perpetrators, that is a much easier pill to swallow for me.

[HeirofNumenor]

Well said to the last 3 posts! (PJ's & Dr. Jones)...

I have been developing in my mind a comparison of 9/11 to a murder investigation...when I put it together I will post it on the forum...

[BlueMoon5]

Bluemoon wrote, about the paper in the mainstream pub Environmentalist,

Now that I have the link, I will respond in detail to your question.

good -- I await your detailed response then.

As I wrote in my post of Saturday, Sept. 17, 11:36 a.m., The Environmentalist shows every indication of being a quality publication. It is tightly edited, rigorously peer-reviewed (at least that's my impression), and its content is well documented. Clearly, it's light years superior to Bentham's science publications. I congratulate you on its publication in TE.

I read every word of the article "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials," by Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and you, Steven E. Jones. You (with your associate authors) present credible evidence for the existence of energetic nanocomposites at GZ. The evidence is credible, but not conclusive; moreover, evidence by itself, does not constitute proof.

You* find it necessary to hedge some of your statements. Example, in discussing extreme spikes in air concentrations of five VOCs, you write "Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite" [emphases added].
*This usage refers to all three authors.

After discussing Cahill's explanation re. the existence of various elements (and subsequently doubting it), you state: "A better explanation for the data collected involves the presence of short-lived, violent fires at GZ. A typical modern day form of thermite, used in military devices for metal cutting, is thermate, with finely powdered sulfur added as part of the flare mixture." Note, however, this from a poster named Arus808, re. the supposed capability of thermite/thermate to cut steel sideways: "A prototype mechanism [which would enable thermite/thermate to cut steel sideways] was made AFTER 9/11." (James Randi Educational Foundation, post of Aug. 9, 2007)

Other comments from the same source re. the Environmentalist article:

"The products of a thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and iron. Claiming either of those as 'thermite residue' means every single home built in the last century contains thermite residue" (poster named Anti-sophist, Aug. 9, 2007).

"Jones bases his thermite theory on sulfur residue at GZ, completely ignoring other obvious sources such as gypsum wallboard" (poster named Alareth, Aug. 9, 2007).

"All the elements Jones points to are in concrete and other things of WTC. He made this up in 2005, he could not find support. . . it's amazing anyone believes him" (poster named beachnut, Aug. 9, 2007).

"Sulphur is the easiest to explain. There were vehicles, with batteries full of sulphuric acid. There were probably emergency lights with lead-acid batteries. The rubber in tires and batteries contains sulphur" (poster named leftysergeant, Aug. 10, 2007).

"The only certain signatures of thermite would be unfired devices, remains of fired devices (e.g. containment vessels, which have not even been hypothesized), large 'pigs' of formerly molten iron, or particular melting modes found in recovered steel. Absolutely none of these signatures was found anywhere. And yes, they were looking for them" (poster named R, Mackey, Oct. 9, 2009).

"Once thermite begins to erode the steel in a vertical column, there is no more contact between the thermite and the steel to continue the reaction to cut the column. It's like throwing sand against a wall and expecting it to stick. Your thermite fantasy cannot happen in this physical universe until you get gravity to work sideways" (poster named A W Smith, Oct. 10, 2008).

"The chemical analysis does not matter. . . .finding particulate or chemical 'evidence' of thermite/thermate is like finding hyrdogen and oxygen in the ocean. The materials in the towers [would] lend themselves to find such material even without thermite use" (poster named ElMondoHummus, Oct. 10, 2008).

"Chemical analysis in the absence of any gross physical characteristics is irrelevant. Finding chemical evidence of thermite in a building with much aluminum and metal oxides present is like finding dirt in a field. It's expected" (same poster as above).

Please note: I do not necessarily agree with these comments; however, it seems to me that some have merit and are worth considering, the anonymity of the authors notwithstanding.

In any event, there is nothing in the paper to directly support the "Truthers'" theory that 1) the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, and 2) thermite/thermate facilitated severing of the columns.
As a friend of mine liked to say, "You can't get there from here."

[BlueMoon5]

; Nice...now back to personal attacks. I was honorably discharged and turned down nearly $30k re-enlistment bonus - tax free (in the Gulf at the time). I won't go into medals and accommodations as it gets pretty ridiculous at that point. Coming from an Army dog....it is a bit ironic!!! Had to throw that one in....LOL.

I switched to the Air Force Reserve after being honorably discharged from the Army, whereupon--after a series of challenging mental and physical tests--I was commissioned a 2nd lieutenant.

Had to throw that one in. . .LOL.

[Jason]

; Nice...now back to personal attacks. I was honorably discharged and turned down nearly $30k re-enlistment bonus - tax free (in the Gulf at the time). I won't go into medals and accommodations as it gets pretty ridiculous at that point. Coming from an Army dog....it is a bit ironic!!! Had to throw that one in....LOL.

I switched to the Air Force Reserve after being honorably discharged from the Army, whereupon--after a series of challenging mental and physical tests--I was commissioned a 2nd lieutenant.

Had to throw that one in. . .LOL.

Ahh....an officer....it all makes sense now!!! I've spent some time on Air Force bases.....isn't the main physical test riding a recumbent stationary bicycle for like 30 minutes without falling off the bike or passing out??? I did hear they made some changes though....and those not capable of running can resort to the stationary bike to pass physical....LOL! Having a few deployments under my belt with training ops at Air Force bases...the mental tests are most likely not as stringent as the physical ones...LOL!

If those boys put in a 12 hr day they left their tools on the flight line and went home....and got the next day off!

One of my brothers was an Air Force officer/pilot.....in all likelihood he would not have survived the Marines!

Anyways....what's your knowledge of CIA history as that pretty much sets the stage for 9/11 background???

[moonwhim]

9/11: The Day History Went Dark, And The World Went Crazy

Saman Mohammadi
The Excavator
September 18, 2011

“It’s not what you know or what you think, it’s how you think and how you know what you know. It’s about the construction of knowledge.” – Christopher Hitchens. This quote is from a discussion on the state of the media in 1997 that Hitchens participated in along with Bill Moyers and others. Watch the discussion (the comment is made at 10:08 – 10:15).

“God save us from labels.” – Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. This quote is featured in Hendrik Hertzberg’s New Yorker article, “Politics and Prose: The letters of Daniel Patrick Moynihan.”

The cover-up of the false flag 9/11 attacks cannot be explained simply by a coordinated censorship operation that reaches across many media organizations, cultural institutions and governments. Culture is more complicated. There are a number of reasons which can illuminate why societal myths have a long life span, like the one about 9/11.

To begin with, the state and media censorship about 9/11 hasn’t been effective, mainly because of the internet, talk radio, citizen documentaries, alternative media, and new media technology.

Over the years, almost everyone has come in contact with various alternative theories about how and why the attacks happened, with the most coherent and popular explanation being that the shadow governments of America and Israel orchestrated the controlled demolition of the twin towers along with Building 7.

The CIA can censor the nitty-gritty details of the government’s prosecution of the war on terror, and they can control free speech to a great extent, but even with all their resources they can’t hide a ten thousand pound elephant in the room.

Plus, censorship doesn’t tell us why millions of people who are aware of alternative explanations of 9/11 and respectable organizations like Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are so close-minded about new knowledge and new ways of seeing the world.

Individual prejudice to new and strange ideas is a curse on the mind, but the CIA didn’t put it there. Thousands of years of human evolution did.

To get around the fact that people can easily access alternative theories about the 9/11 attacks and other state crimes on the internet, the CIA and the secret government lean toward political language to stunt the organic growth of ideas and stigmatize truth-tellers as paranoid weirdos.

As we all are well aware, the special two-word label that enables the thought managers to perform their word magic trick upon society is “conspiracy theorist.” The effect produced in the popular imagination is that people who question that Al-Qaeda was behind 9/11 are not serious, rational, respectable, right, or sane.


A recently retired Congressional staffer named Mike Lofgren emphasized the importance of language in shaping political perceptions about major issues and popular beliefs about major legislation in his incredibly truthful article called, “Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult.”

Lofgren says Democrats have lost ground to the Republicans because Democrats “do not understand language.” That charge can be laid against anyone who denigrates 9/11 truth-tellers by giving them condescending labels such as “conspiracy theorists,” “nut jobs,” and “truthers.”

The art of controlling the minds of the masses existed long before the CIA came on the scene. But with the modern mass media and cable television the art of thought control advanced beyond the wildest dreams of ancient despots.

New media technology and television, however, is only part of it. Thought control hasn’t changed in thousands of years. It is still about mastering the basics: language, speech, socialization, perception, stigmatization. “It’s about the construction of knowledge,” says Christopher Hitchens.

Controlling the thoughts of millions is possible by defining the boundaries between normal, sane, and rational thinking on one side and abnormal, crazy, and conspiratorial thinking on the other side.

The power to define the mental boundaries of sane and insane speech in the so-called free societies of America and the West comes from the monopoly over language and political discourse. Ideas like the U.S. and Israeli governments did 9/11 are branded as “controversial” and “conspiratorial” and dismissed from the boundaries of sane speech because they threaten the illegitimate usurpers who are in power in Washington.

So America and the West are not free at all. Mental slavery exists in our countries. A free society is tolerant of different ideas and open to alternative viewpoints. Labels like “conspiracy theorists” and “truthers” don’t belong in free societies.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was probably alluding to the staying power of labels and their negative impact on society when he said, “God save us from labels,” in a letter to author and cultural critic Christopher Lasch. Labels are anti-human, anti-thought, and anti-civilization. The barbaric, stupid and irrational side of man sticks to labels to explain complex social realities and human culture.

If you consider yourself to be a civilized and intelligent human being then throw away the labels in your mind that keep you from understanding reality and recognizing the truth. Stop using the stupid “conspiracy theorist,” label to silence 9/11 truth-tellers. You can be bigger than that. Allow your knowledge of the world to expand.

Don’t participate in the mind game that the thought managers who control the United States, Israel and the West are playing on humanity. Don’t let them define who is crazy and who is sane; what is the truth and what is a conspiracy theory.

Define reality by researching the facts and exploring all the dimensions of knowledge, because what you hear on television and read in the newspaper is not reality. You have the intellectual capacity and the common sense to understand that we have all been treated like lab rats and that we are being lied to on a grand scale by a group of very sick, evil and power-hungry authoritarians who murdered three thousand people on September 11, 2001.

Don’t waste your gift of human reason and common sense. And if you have a voice, use it to enlighten your fellow man.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/911-the-day-his ... ent-crazy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;