The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud

[BlueMoon5]

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

"Cherry picking" again, eh Rob/Jason? (Did you grow up on a fruit farm?) The overall thrust of both the articles I linked is not kind to your up-in-the-night position.

Some excerpts:

"Harrit and Jones base their identification of the WTC red/gray chips as a 'nanothermitic material' on three observations: 1) The material's composition: mostly Al, Fe, O,Si, and C. 2) The presence of intimately mixed sub-micron particles rich in Al and Fe. 3) The ignition behavior of the chips. Re. 1): [Their] observation is hardly definitive since the list of identified elements describes the composition as a mixture of many very common building materials known to have been present in the TT. In adddition, Si is usually not considered to be an ingredient of conventional thermite. Re. 2): [Their] observation is also not definitive because of the previously noted issue of the variability of nanothermite formulations. . . . H&J's red/gray chips contain only Al platelets approx. 1 micron in diameter and 50 mm thick. These Al particles are too large to be correctly classified as nano-scale material. [Based on studies done by scientists at Lawrence Livermore.] Re. 3): This observation was partly corroborated by Henry-Couannier, an independent researcher. However, while Henry-Couannier confirmed H&J's observations concerning the chips' composition and particle size, he has reported difficulty in igniting material extracted from his WTC dust sample even when heated to 900 deg. C." (The 9/11 Forum)

"It is well documented that nanothermites alone are not a practical high explosive. Thus we read in a recent article by E. L. Dreizin in Progress in Energy and Combustion Science: 'Combustion of nanocomposite thermite was found to produce gas pressures that are inadequate for ignition primers. . .'."
(The 9/11 Forum)

"T. Mark Hightower (chemical engineer), decided to investigate [the use of nanothermite] as an explosive." [I mentioned this in my earlier post.] He wrote to several leading 9/11 researchers, and he also did his own research. "The replies he has received suggest that this is an isssue they are unwilling to examine fully and openly." Hightower explained to Richard Gage (founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth) that "this paper offers no evidence to me that explosive velocities anywhere near that of TNT (22,600 fps) can be produced by nanothermites as described and presented." (Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community? James Fetzer)

You quoted the following, somehow imagining (wishful thinking, perhaps?) that it supports your position (you appear to have read only the first sentence): "We do have visual evidence (videos) that strongly indicate. . .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 explosive demolition, nuclear demolition, or directed free-eneregy technology; in fact, it is somewhat misleading and--for that reason alone--probably not the best horse for us to be betting on." (same source as above)

[Rob]

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

"Cherry picking" again, eh Rob? (Did you grow up on a fruit farm?) The overall thrust of both the articles I linked is not kind to your up-in-the-night position.

Provide the quote, please. You quoted Jason, but not me. 8-|

Some excerpts:

"Harrit and Jones base their identification of the WTC red/gray chips as a 'nanothermitic material' on three observations: 1) The material's composition: mostly Al, Fe, O,Si, and C. 2) The presence of intimately mixed sub-micron particles rich in Al and Fe. 3) The ignition behavior of the chips. Re. 1): [Their] observation is hardly definitive since the list of identified elements describes the composition as a mixture of many very common building materials known to have been present in the TT. In adddition, Si is usually not considered to be an ingredient of conventional thermite. Re. 2): [Their] observation is also not definitive because of the previously noted issue of the variability of nanothermite formulations. . . . H&J's red/gray chips contain only Al platelets approx. 1 micron in diameter and 50 mm thick. These Al particles are too large to be correctly classified as nano-scale material. [Based on studies done by scientists at Lawrence Livermore.] Re. 3): This observation was partly corroborated by Henry-Couannier, an independent researcher. However, while Henry-Couannier confirmed H&J's observations concerning the chips' composition and particle size, he has reported difficulty in igniting material extracted from his WTC dust sample even when heated to 900 deg. C." (The 9/11 Forum)

"It is well documented that nanothermites alone are not a practical high explosive. Thus we read in a recent article by E. L. Dreizin in Progress in Energy and Combustion Science: 'Combustion of nanocomposite thermite was found to produce gas pressures that are inadequate for ignition primers. . .'."
(The 9/11 Forum)

"T. Mark Hightower (chemical engineer), decided to investigate [the use of nanothermite] as an explosive." [I mentioned this in my earlier post.] He wrote to several leading 9/11 researchers, and he also did his own research. "The replies he has received suggest that this is an isssue they are unwilling to examine fully and openly." Hightower explained to Richard Gage (founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth) that "this paper offers no evidence to me that explosive velocities anywhere near that of TNT (22,600 fps) can be produced by nanothermites as described and presented." (Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community? James Fetzer)

Harrit is of the opinion that both incendiaries and explosives were used, as he stated in the A&E video. Please watch and let me know if I've taken him out of context. Harrit said it was obviously a controlled demolition.

You quoted the following, somehow imagining (wishful thinking, perhaps?) that it supports your position (you appear to have read only the first sentence): "We do have visual evidence (videos) that strongly indicate. . .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 explosive demolition, nuclear demolition, or directed free-eneregy technology; in fact, it is somewhat misleading and--for that reason alone--probably not the best horse for us to be betting on." (same source as above)

You're talking about my position? What position would that be? Please provide a quote of exactly what I stated my position to be, and we'll see whether or not the statement above defends it.

[Col. Flagg]

I'll post this again for those who may have missed it (this summary is from years of independent research in addition to scientific evidence, facts, broken laws of physics and information from alternative news sources)...

9/11 in a nutshell:

The twin towers were aging dinosaurs, condemned structures and financial liabilities for its owner, the NY Port Authority. They were full of asbestos and toxic time bombs. In the late '90's, the city of Manhattan mandated asbestos abatement in all buildings. It was going to cost $2+ billion to have all the asbestos removed from the twin towers while they were already losing money via rented offices and decreased tourism to the area. The NY Port Authority tried 3 times to obtain a permit to have them demolished but were denied because of the asbestos and extreme height of the buildings.

In the spring of 2001, the NY Port Authority sold the WTC complex lease to Larry Silverstein who then takes out a massive insurance policy against terrorist attack. On September 11, 2001, two planes strike both towers acting as the cover for the buildings' demolitions. Mr. Silverstein's asbestos-laden financial liabilities were now gone and instead of having to fork over $2+ billion to have them asbestos-free, he walked away with $4.5 billion in insurance money on a $300 million investment (who wouldn't want to make a 1,500% return on their money)? Mr. Silverstein had domestic and international political connections.

Building 7 housed thousands of investigative SEC case files involving massive crimes ranging from fraud and extortion to money-laundering and racketeering involving Washington, DC, the big banks and Wall Street (Enron and WorldCom were just the tip of the iceberg). Had many or all of the cases gone public, it could have brought down the entire establishment. Its destruction ensured all the investigations disappeared.

Over in Pennsylvania, flight 93 was shot down after passengers rushed the cockpit and seized control of the plane, compromising its final destination which, more than likely, was building 7 (to justify its demolition).

Then, at the Pentagon, the section that was struck housed a bunch of Auditors and Accountants who were investigating $2.3 TRILLION that Rumsfeld announced on 9/10/01 had gone missing. The attack destroyed all of the records, case files, computers and servers involved in the investigation and killed most of the individuals overseeing the investigation.

So you have covering up massive financial crimes and making billions as the motive while the U.S. military-industrial complex got a blank check going for itself in the form of no-bid defense contracts for firms with ties to neo-cons in the Bush administration, PNAC got its 'new Pearl Harbor' and it gave DC a reason to begin cracking down on our freedoms in an attempt to transform the U.S. into a fascist police state.

[BroJones]

@bluemoon: I've already replied to a number of these questions. Sigh. To no avail it seems.

Bluemoon, you seem to quote others repeatedly like JREF'ers (then you say you don't necessarily agree with them all) and Mark HIghtower rather than making your own comments. This is not solid study and analysis on YOUR part. IMO.

See the vids by engineer Jon Cole who has done extensive work on thermate cutting HORIZONTALLY through steel beams... youtube. These are solid, experimental data. Would you comment on his EXPERIMENTAL PROOF that thermate can and does cut horizontally through steel beams? thanks.

I would refer to our papers on evidence for high temperatures in the WTC data as well.

Finally, wrt Hightower -- I responded as follows. Noting that I already cited this response to you, but here it is quoted to make it easier for you, and I await your response to this essay of mine:

Responses to questions regarding thermite, nanothermite and conventional explosives used in the WTC destruction.
Submitted by ProfJones on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:47am

Here I field questions that come to me fairly often, to help get the facts out and to counter misrepresentations and misunderstandings. I expect to make edits for a while and welcome comments.

1. Can nanothermites (also called superthermites) be explosive?

The definition of “explosive” can lead to endless debates. Is a flash of light required? Is a loud sound required? How loud? What rate of energy generation is required for a material to be called an explosive? Where is the line between low explosives and high explosives?
Rather than getting mired into ad nauseum debates, I will use the term “explosive” in conjunction with superthermites/nanothermites IF the national defense laboratories which developed these materials use the term. Here we go.

"Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos. "The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out," Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly... Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices... However, researchers aren't permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research." {Gartner, John (2005). "Military Reloads with Nanotech," Technology Review, January 21, 2005; http://www.technologyreview.com/read_ar ... h=nanotech" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; }

I wish to emphasize that nanothermites can be “engineered” or tailored to burn more slowly or more quickly, even as “explosive devices” as the above article from Los Alamos National Laboratory states clearly.

Next a reference to “explosives” based on nanocomposites involving aluminum and iron oxide from the large US Defense Laboratory at Livermore, California:

“We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives,
propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry. A novel sol-gel approach has proven successful in
preparing metal oxide/silicon oxide nanocomposites in which the metal oxide is the major component. By
introducing a fuel metal, such as aluminum, into the metal oxide/silicon oxide matrix, energetic materials
based on thermite reactions can be fabricated. Two of the metal oxides are tungsten trioxide and iron(III)
oxide, both of which are of interest in the field of energetic materials. In addition, due to the large
availability of organically functionalized silanes, the silicon oxide phase can be used as a unique way of
introducing organic additives into the bulk metal oxide materials. These organic additives can cause the
generation of gas upon ignition of the materials, therefore resulting in a composite material that can
perform pressure/volume work. Furthermore, the desired organic functionality is well dispersed
throughout the composite material on the nanoscale with the other components, and is therefore subject to
the same increased reaction kinetics. The resulting nanoscale distribution of all the ingredients displays
energetic properties not seen in its microscale counterparts due to the expected increase of mass transport
rates between the reactants. The synthesis and characterization of iron(III) oxide/organosilicon oxide
nanocomposites and their performance as energetic materials will be discussed.”
(Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Gash AE, et al. Synthesis and characterization of mixed metal oxide nanocomposite energetic materials. UCRL-PROC- 204118, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 12 May 2004)

Note in particular that Dr. Clapsaddle states that nano-thermite with organics can indeed perform pressure/volume work, key to their explosive capabilities. I understand that the organics are part of the production process and integral components of these types of nanothermites. One final corroborating quote from the same author:

“We have previously prepared pyrotechnic and explosive composites based on thermite reactions whose fuel and oxidizer constituents are intimately mixed on the nanometer-sized scale […]”
B. J. Clapsaddle et al., “Formulation and Performance of Novel Energetic Nanocomposites and Gas Generators Prepared by Sol-Gel Methods,” 2005.

2. What is the difference between ordinary thermite and nano-thermite?

There are major differences, although the basic thermitic reaction is involved in each:
Aluminum powder + Iron-oxide powder → (ignited) → Aluminum-oxide + Molten Iron

Enormous energy is released as molten iron is formed, and this typically ends up either as flowing molten metal or, if ejected into the air, as metallic-iron spheres (which are found in the WTC dust in great abundance: Jones SE, Farrer J, Jenkins GS, et al. Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction. J 9/11 Studies 2008; 19: 1-11. http://www.journalof911studies.com/arti ... hTemp2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ).
Technical point: other fuels can be substituted for aluminum, and other oxidizers for iron-oxide.
Here's a summary of major differences:

THERMITE
Starts with larger particles of aluminum and iron-oxide (bigger than about 100 nanometers)
Incendiary (non-explosive)
Sulfur added (typically called thermate) forms a eutectic with molten iron product, staying liquid at lower temperatures (red-orange-hot) when ordinary iron and steel would be solid

NANOTHERMITE
Starts with particles of aluminum and iron-oxide smaller than about 100 nanometers; hence “nano”
Often mixed with organic material so as to generate gas
Can be tailored to be explosive (see point 1 above), or used as a trigger material --for explosives used for demolitions.

Recent experiments by Jon Cole demonstrate that thermite with sulfur added (“thermate”) can indeed cut through steel and do pressure-volume work; sulfur makes a huge difference (as I also pointed out in my first 9/11-research paper)! Very exciting work, especially starting around the 11-minute mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qamecech9m4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

3. Are you now saying that nanothermite was used instead of thermate, or was the only explosive material in the operations?

No, never said that. On the contrary, I have consistently noted that more conventional explosives may very well have also been used in the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers. And the presence of orange-colored molten metal flowing from the South Tower just minutes before its complete fall along with a bright white fire (both admitted by NIST) strongly indicates the presence of pyrotechnic thermite plus sulfur. (Thermite when ignites generates white-hot molten iron; sulfur keeps the iron liquid to lower orange-hot temperatures and allows the liquid iron to attack steel much more vigorously.)

In recorded remarks given publicly in Australia, I noted that a Dept. of Defense journal Amptiac showed the use of nanointermetallic material such as nanothermite as a fuse or initiator, in conjunction with a shaped charge of more conventional explosive. {Miziolek AW. Nanoenergetics: an emerging technology area of national importance. Amptiac Q 2002; 6(1): 43-48.} {See also my videotaped presentation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6ey5i0U ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .}
Consistent with this, a publication from Los Alamos National Lab noted that “superthermite... applications include triggering explosives for... demolition” { http://awards.lanl.gov/PDFfiles/Super-T ... s_2003.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;}. I personally think that this triggering is the most likely reason for the presence of the red thermitic material observed in the WTC dust; but further investigation with subpoena power would be needed to verify this point.

4. Do you agree that “ Jones is putting "superthermite" in the same category of explosiveness as HMX and RDX” as claimed by Mark Hightower? (Email to Jones and numerous others from Mark Hightower, 8 May 2011).

No, I do not. While the Los Alamos developers note that superthermite can be tailored for use in “explosive devices” as cited above, specifics are not given, evidently because of “military” applications.

5. Could the red nano-thermitic material found in the WTC dust have been the result of clean-up operations after 9/11?

No. As noted in our peer-reviewed paper on the discovery of this material in the WTC dust, a sample was collected on 9/11 about ten minutes after the destruction of the second tower, long before clean-up operations began.
“The earliest-collected sample came from Mr. Frank Delessio who, according to his videotaped testimony [17], was on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the North Tower. He then went to visit his friend, Mr. Tom Breidenbach, carrying the dust in his hand, and the two of them discussed the dust and decided to save it in a plastic bag. On 11/15/2007, Breidenbach sent a portion of this dust to Dr. Jones for analysis. Breidenbach has also recorded his testimony about the collection of this dust sample on video- tape [17]. Thus, the Delessio/Breidenbach sample was col- lected about ten minutes after the second tower collapsed. It was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steel- cutting or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began later.” {http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/conte ... 7TOCPJ.SGM}

6. Could the red nano-thermitic material found in the WTC dust have been the result of iron oxide from the building combining with aluminum from the building, during the collapses?
You left out the significant presence of organic material found in the red chips – where did that come from? Not so easy. You also need to explain how the aluminum can end up on 40-nanometer thin platelets as observed in our electron-microscope studies of the material from the WTC dust. Get serious. The observed mix has nano-components which do not organize themselves into a highly active form (including organics) from larger objects in violation of the laws of physics. (Needless to say, I disagree with Judy Wood's explanation; see several related papers in the Journalof911Studies, e.g., http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2 ... rected-Ene.." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.)

7. Could the red nano-thermitic material found in the WTC dust have been primer paint used on the WTC?

No. We obtained asample of primer paint from a 9/11 monument at Clarkson College in New York with the help of a colleague there, and the paint proved to have a distinctly different chemical composition from that observed in the red/gray chips. In particular, the primer paint used on the WTC shows significant zinc content, absent when the interior of a red-material sample is exposed (see our paper {http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/conte ... 7TOCPJ.SGM} and Australia talk, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPSSyDnQkR0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ). See attached XEDX graphs showing distinct elemental contents of the red chips and the primer paint (both from the WTC). Even under a good optical microscope, one can see the difference between the primer paint and the red/gray chips; see for example, recent photomicrographs by Jon Cole. While both are present in the WTC dust, the primer paint is rather flexible and non-glossy whereas the red thermitic material is rigid and rather brittle and glossy under white light illumination. It is the observed brittleness that evidently led to the fracturing of the red material into small fragments during the destruction of the buildings.
Further, after soaking in MEK, the red/gray chips (still wet with MEK) remained very hard, easy to pick up with forceps without deforming. OTOH, primer paint chips became very flexible and limp after soaking and still wet with MEK. There can be no mistaking the distinction.

5. Figure 14 in your paper shows zinc. Doesn't this mean that this sample (which later was soaked in MEK) was a primer-paint sample?

It is unfortunate that we did not first fracture the chip which was later soaked in MEK and measure the fresh surface -- a procedure we followed (thanks to Dr. Jeff Farrer) on the FOUR chips thoroughly analyzed in the paper. I am certain that if we had done this, there would have been no zinc on the inside of the chip-later-soaked, because after soaking there was NO ZINC (as we showed in our paper, Figures 16, 17 and 18). Clearly, soaking and agitating in MEK removed surface contamination. The Zn seen in Figure 14 was before soaking, as we said in the paper, and was very likely due to surface contamination, but we could have stated that more clearly. A lot of Zn was present in the dust (a fact recorded also in the USGS data set for the WTC dust). The fact that no Zinc or Ca show up in the XEDS spectra post-MEK, Figs 16, 17 and 18 is crucially important as demonstration that this is NOT primer paint.

6. What is the main evidence you have that the red material undergoes a thermitic reaction when ignited?

I would say the main evidence is the formation of reduced-iron spheres in the ash as the red material is heated to ignition, as described in some detail in our paper.
“That thermitic reactions from the red/gray chips have indeed occurred in the DSC (rising temperature method of ignition) is confirmed by the combined observation of 1) highly energetic reactions occurring at approximately
430 ̊C, 2) iron-rich sphere formation so that the product must have been sufficiently hot to be molten (over 1400 ̊C for iron and iron oxide), 3) spheres, spheroids and non- spheroidal residues in which the iron content exceeds the oxygen content. Significant elemental iron is now present as expected from the thermitic reduction-oxidation reaction of aluminum and iron oxide.
The evidence for active, highly energetic thermitic material in the WTC dust is compelling.”
While the reaction of the red material is highly exothermic, as shown in Figure 29 in our paper, the behavior on ignition after years of air-exposure does not allow us to call the material "high explosive" and I would not use that term in describing it.

7. What would be the motivation to place pyrotechnic material in the Towers and WTC 7 so as to cause the observed accelerated fall of these skyscrapers? Who would do such a thing?

These questions go beyond what we can learn by direct scientific methods such as use of electron-microscopy coupled with EDX probing and analysis of the accelerated fall of these buildings. We have done our part as scientists and engineers to demonstrate holes in the “official 9/11 story”, that no explosives were also involved that day. We believe that to get answers to the “who” and “why” questions will require a determined investigation with subpoena power. It is the same in most criminal cases where the evidence is not destroyed – scientific/forensic study is followed by a criminal investigation and trial.
The presence of pyrotechnic material in the WTC dust – along with other compelling evidences such as the free-fall acceleration of WTC7 – means that such an investigation and trial are necessary in order for justice to be served. The rubble of WTC7 was observed in a rubble pile on the footprint of the building; classic controlled-demolition style -- certainly not "dustified". Pushed by a few of us, NIST finally admits that WTC 7 fell with “free-fall acceleration” for over 100 feet, which requires that hundreds of tons of steel and concrete had to be moved out of the way via explosives.

[BlueMoon5]

@bluemoon: I've already replied to a number of these questions. Sigh. To no avail it seems.

Please know that I appreciate the time and effort you took to respond to my previous post. I realize the scope of your paper was necessarily limited to showing evidence that energetic materials accounted for environmental anomalies at WTC. You may, indeed, be right. Even if you are, you cannot prove the larger, overarching question, which is the centerpiece of this discussion: What was the source of those energetic materials? Your followers insist that thermite/thermate (perhaps augmented by more conventional explosives) was planted on the columns, thus facilitating a controlled demolition. Yes, you have video footage, yes you can talk about physics and "free fall," yes you have statements from firemen, etc. Still, you cannot conclusively prove your conspiracy theory. It's unfortunate that your followers have closed their minds to any other possibilities. I have said this before, but it bears repeating: The attacks on the buildings by jet aircraft fully loaded with fuel and flying at circa 400-500 mph are, obviously, unprecedented. "Truthers" have no way of knowing with certitude how the buildings should respond.
Building demolition experts say it takes months to prepare buildings the size of the towers for demolition. Typically, columns have to be partially cut using cutting torches. Even if that wasn't necessary in the WTC case, how--with hundreds of employees and visitors present in the buildings (even at night)--was that accomplished in secret? And how is it that not one person out of the hundreds who would have had to be involved (beginning, gasp!, with the 9/11 Commission), has come forward to support the "Truthers" theory? And how is it that compared to the number of chemical/civil/mechanical engineers in this country, only a fraction support your position? And how is it that no prestigious journal has addressed your conspiracy theory? Yes, The Environmentalist published your article, but that article didn't address your conspiracy theory--a theory so radical and so offensive that it claims U. S. government leaders facilitated the attacks.

You and your author-associates wrote a good article, but only within the constraints imposed by the title.

[shadow]

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?

Good advise Dr. Jones. There is ample evidence that flight 77 did indeed hit the Pentagon and I agree with Dr. Legge that those who refuse to see the evidence as it really is are actually hurting the 911 truth movement. The so called proof that many truthers use to express their viewpoint that a 77 did not hit the pentagon are so obviously incomplete or taken out of context that it makes it difficult to believe anything they say. I think this is also part of what bluemoon is referring to with his frustration with "truthers'.

I'm glad to see that you are leaning on the side that flight 77 did hit the pentagon :ymhug:
But be careful, ironically you might be labeled as one who believes the "official story"! )

[Col. Flagg]

Let me introduce April Gallop...



I would advise anyone researching the Pentagon strike to watch this interview she gave about what she saw, didn't see, heard, experienced and did as a Pentagon employee that day... this is one courageous woman...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EcpiPL6kw4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[shadow]

Let me introduce April Gallop...

Interesting that the smell of jet fuel brings back memories of that day at the Pentagon

[BlueMoon5]

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?

Good advise Dr. Jones. There is ample evidence that flight 77 did indeed hit the Pentagon and I agree with Dr. Legge that those who refuse to see the evidence as it really is are actually hurting the 911 truth movement. The so called proof that many truthers use to express their viewpoint that a 77 did not hit the pentagon are so obviously incomplete or taken out of context that it makes it difficult to believe anything they say. I think this is also part of what bluemoon is referring to with his frustration with "truthers'.

I'm glad to see that you are leaning on the side that flight 77 did hit the pentagon :ymhug:
But be careful, ironically you might be labeled as one who believes the "official story"! )

Amen. I asked this question earlier, but your post prompts a reiteration: If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, where are the passengers? Where is the crew, including Renee May who called her mother to report the plane had been hijacked? (That call lasted nearly two minutes.) Where are the hijackers? Where is the airplane?

Of course, Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. We have first-hand, eyewitness accounts that collaborate
one another. We have parts of the plane in the debris field. We have Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld coming out of the building and seeing that debris. We also have the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses, including a professional reporter, i.e.: "USA Today reporter Mike Walter was driving on Washington Blvd. when he witnessed the crash: 'I looked out my window and saw this plane, an AA jet, coming. And I thought this doesn't add up, it's really low. And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed into the right side of the Pentagon." (Wikipedia, "American Airlines Flight 77")

And, yes, we have the remains: ". . .they were turned over to the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's office, located at Dover AFB in in Delaware. The medical examiner's office was able to identify remains belonging to 179 of the victims [people from the plane and who were in the Pentagon]. Investigators eventually identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the attack. The remains of the five hijackers were identified through a process of elimination, and were turned over as evidence to the FBI." (Wikipedia, "American Airlines Flight 77 - Remains")

To deny that AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon is to deny that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shots that killed John F. Kennedy. But, of course, if you're a "Truther," anything is possible.

[HeirofNumenor]

This probably belongs in it's own thread but...

To deny that AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon is to deny that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shots that killed John F. Kennedy. But, of course, if you're a "Truther," anything is possible.

Sorry bud... I am not convinced of what hit the Pentagon (but not denying anything either)....yet there is no way that Oswald even shot at JFK....

And before you begin to ridicule me for that... consider this:

Why have all the other nations on Earth have coups and cabals to overthrow their leaders, yet the USA is always just a lone gunman? FOUR times (successfully)

Lincoln 1865
Garfield 1881
McKinley 1901
JFK 1963

Plus (non-president assassinations)
MLK 1968
RFK 1968


Unsuccessful attempts (lone gunmen also *supposedly*)
Ford (2x)
Reagan 1981

(These are just the ones I can list off the top of my head, and only limited to death by gunshot)

For all of these attempts and deaths, Cui Bono? Who benefits? What courses were changed, decisions and policies were reversed (or enacted) because of these murders (or murder attempts) on these men?


We are no better than any other nation on earth...we have an abundance of the same sins and evils common to all mankind - indeed we have fallen from our elevated dignity and status because of our sins - individual and collective, personal, societal, and national...

[BlueMoon5]

This probably belongs in it's own thread but...

To deny that AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon is to deny that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shots that killed John F. Kennedy. But, of course, if you're a "Truther," anything is possible.

Sorry bud... I am not convinced of what hit the Pentagon (but not denying anything either)....yet there is no way that Oswald even shot at JFK....

Excellent (and timely) exercise in making my point: "For 'Truthers,' anything is possible."

: And before you begin to ridicule me for that... consider this:

Why have all the other nations on Earth have coups and cabals to overthrow their leaders, yet the USA is always just a lone gunman? FOUR times (successfully)

The answer is obvious: Coups and cabals are driven by revolutionary fervor and racism.

: We are no better than any other nation on earth...we have an abundance of the same sins and evils common to all mankind - indeed we have fallen from our elevated dignity and status because of our sins - individual and collective, personal, societal, and national...

The "natural man" knows no geography. You might reflect, however, on America's generosity toward other nations. And then there's the little matter of having saved Europe's bacon in WWII;
including, for Germany, the Berlin Air Lift. You overstate your case.

[Army Of Truth]

Excellent (and timely) exercise in making my point: "For 'Truthers,' anything is possible."

"For LIARS, anything is possible EXCEPT the TRUTH."

) ) )

[Army Of Truth]

...You might reflect, however, on America's generosity toward other nations...

How generous of our "leaders" to 'assist' Iraq with over one million dead, 4.5 Million Displaced, 1-2 Million Widows, 5 Million Orphans and almost 5000 dead U.S. soldiers. Oh, and I forgot to mention our "generosity" extends to Afghanistan and Libya and Pakistan, and soon to be Iran.

I don't agree with our 'globalist empire-hungry war mongering' scheming leaders lulling us away with hollow promises and outright lies.

[Col. Flagg]

Bluemoon, out of curiosity, did you see the pics a few pages back of the dozens of vehicles a few blocks from ground zero that had been completely burnt and rusted/corroded? If so, please educate us as to how that happened with the plane impacts. Thanks.

[shadow]

Bluemoon, out of curiosity, did you see the pics a few pages back of the dozens of vehicles a few blocks from ground zero that had been completely burnt and rusted/corroded? If so, please educate us as to how that happened with the plane impacts. Thanks.

So you're saying that a burned rusted car must mean that thermate was used?

[HeirofNumenor]

So you're saying that a burned rusted car must mean that thermate was used?

I don't think NYPD would be driving burned out/rusted cars on duty...

[HeirofNumenor]

This probably belongs in it's own thread but...

To deny that AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon is to deny that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shots that killed John F. Kennedy. But, of course, if you're a "Truther," anything is possible.

Sorry bud... I am not convinced of what hit the Pentagon (but not denying anything either)....yet there is no way that Oswald even shot at JFK....

Excellent (and timely) exercise in making my point: "For 'Truthers,' anything is possible."

: And before you begin to ridicule me for that... consider this:

Why have all the other nations on Earth have coups and cabals to overthrow their leaders, yet the USA is always just a lone gunman? FOUR times (successfully)

The answer is obvious: Coups and cabals are driven by revolutionary fervor and racism.

: We are no better than any other nation on earth...we have an abundance of the same sins and evils common to all mankind - indeed we have fallen from our elevated dignity and status because of our sins - individual and collective, personal, societal, and national...

The "natural man" knows no geography. You might reflect, however, on America's generosity toward other nations. And then there's the little matter of having saved Europe's bacon in WWII;
including, for Germany, the Berlin Air Lift. You overstate your case.

Nice dodge...

btw, the assassination of Julius Caesar was not driven by revolutionary fervor, nor are all the judges, prosecutors, etc who are assassinated in Mexico, Columbia, ect... - preserving criminal profits/ill-gotten gains is what matters, NOT viva la revolution!

[shadow]

So you're saying that a burned rusted car must mean that thermate was used?

I don't think NYPD would be driving burned out/rusted cars on duty...

Nice dodge...

[BlueMoon5]

Excellent (and timely) exercise in making my point: "For 'Truthers,' anything is possible."

"For LIARS, anything is possible EXCEPT the TRUTH."

) ) )

Clearly you do not understand that name-calling is the last resort of would-be debaters.

[BlueMoon5]

Bluemoon, out of curiosity, did you see the pics a few pages back of the dozens of vehicles a few blocks from ground zero that had been completely burnt and rusted/corroded? If so, please educate us as to how that happened with the plane impacts. Thanks.

Yes, I saw the photos. When were they taken? What are they supposed to prove for "Truthers?"

[BlueMoon5]

: btw, the assassination of Julius Caesar was not driven by revolutionary fervor, nor are all the judges, prosecutors, etc who are assassinated in Mexico, Columbia, ect... - preserving criminal profits/ill-gotten gains is what matters, NOT viva la revolution!

You changed the parameters of your question. You listed four U.S. presidents and MLK and RFK as being victims of "a lone gunman." My point was that, unlike the coups and cabals operative in other countries, revolutionary fervor was not "in play" in the examples you listed (although in the case of MLK, racism was, of course, a motivating factor). Moreover, what makes you think that the assassinations you list (Mexico, Columbia, etc.) were not driven, at least in part, by coups and cabals who not only wanted more money, but more power. The route to power is frequently via revolution.

BTW, the assassination of Julius Caesar was engineered by about 40 Roman senators who called themselves Liberators. They rebelled against Caesar's declaration that he was to be dictator perpetuo. The assassination led to a civil war, and eventually the rise of Octavian to the position of emperor and the dissolution of the Republic. Thus, you err when you say Caesar's assassination was not driven by revolutionary fervor. Those 40 Roman senators revolted against Caesar's dictatorship.
(various sources, including Wikipedia)

[Jason]

To deny that AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon is to deny that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shots that killed John F. Kennedy. But, of course, if you're a "Truther," anything is possible.

You'll probably ignore this just like you have most everything else that contradicts your little paradigm....but at least my garments will be clean and I'll testify that you were given the knowledge (for free) -

http://bousnett.com/rune/webBooks/z-Kil ... derETc.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Army Of Truth]

Excellent (and timely) exercise in making my point: "For 'Truthers,' anything is possible."

"For LIARS, anything is possible EXCEPT the TRUTH."

) ) )

Clearly you do not understand that name-calling is the last resort of would-be debaters.

Ahhhh...that explains why you are sooooooo good at it!! You've yet to prove ANYTHING that you 9/11 LIARS are trying to prove with your 'magical coincidental law-of-gravity breaking official conspiracy theory'.

[Jason]

[BlueMoon5] - 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 Paperclip, Operation Artichoke, Project Bluebird, Operation Condor, Operation AJAX, Operation Gladio, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Zapata, Operation Zipper, Operation Mongoose, ZR/RIFLE program, Operation Pegasus, Project MK-ULTRA, Operation Midnight Climax, Operation Phoenix, Operation Peter Pan, Operation Watchtower, Operation Cyclone, The Safari Club, Iran/Contra, BCCI, Operation Amadeus, Operation Chaos, etc???

Later stuff like Operation Hotel California? Operation Just Cause? Operation Snakebite, Operation Merlin? The latest to really blow up and come to light - Operation Fast and Furious?

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!!!

No answer????

[LoveIsTruth]

Yes, I saw the photos. When were they taken? What are they supposed to prove for "Truthers?"

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Let's look at it logicaly: if you call us "Truthers," and your possition is the opposite of ours, are we then justified in calling you "Liars?" Logically, and according to you, that's what you are. [Strictly logic, friend.] And since when "Truth" has became a derogatory term? Of course we all remember that "Truth is treason in the empire of lies." So, if you insist on calling us "Truthers," you should consent to us calling you "Liars," since your position is the opposite of ours, and it is only logical!

Thank you.