Chemical Engineer Mark Basile and Other Professionals Speak Out for ReThink 911

To help Mark Basile finish the work he spoke of doing in the video, visit: http://markbasile.org

Read More

Pat Curley Has Made Up His Mind

And apparently that’s never going to change. Mr. Curley has commentedon my recent article posted at ae911truth.org, and seems to think there’s a contradiction. He writes:

Box Boy Gage publishes another article supposedly debunking the latest version of the Popular Mechanics book. Get this part:

PM refers to Barry Jennings as the sole witness to explosions in connection with the destruction of Building 7, when in fact that is completely untrue. There are several other individuals who claimed to have heard explosions right before and during the time Building 7 collapsed, including first responders Kevin McPadden and Craig Bartmer.

So now we’re back to explosions?  Remember two years ago, Gage debated Chris Mohr at the University of Colorado (Boulder) where there was this exchange:

Further along in the debate, after Gage showed the WTC 7 collapse video adjacent to a known controlled demolition Chris Mohr, ignored the visual similarity and noted that “they sound completely different”.

Gage: Well, of course they do. One is using high-energy explosives, and the other thermate, an incendiary. This is, after all, a deceptive, controlled demolition.

The first blatant problem I have to call Pat out on is the fact that he cites a supposed problem with Richard Gage’s argumentation, when it’s my arguments that are the focus of the article. Notice that the top of the article reads “Written by Adam Taylor.” That’s because I wrote it and make my own arguments. While ae911truth has generously posted my articles at their site, the content of those articles is mine. Since Pat apparently can’t tell the difference between something I wrote and something Richard Gage said, it’s difficult to see this as anything but a straw-manargument.

Second, there’s no contradiction to begin with. I explained this two years ago to Pat’s buddy James, who also has problems understanding arguments presented by the other side. Pat’s characterization of my article as “supposedly” debunking Popular Mechanics is also interesting, since he doesn’t actually point out anything I got wrong. I’m not particularly surprised by this, but it doesn’t make it any less irritating.

More amusing than Pat’s hand-waving, however, is a commentleft by one of ScrewLooseChange’s frequent visitors “Richard Gage's Testicles.” He says of me:

Oh good, Gage got more unpaid out of Adam Taylor. Taylor’s an obnoxious little pseudoskeptical anarchist wannabe, judging from his videos.

And as usual he misses the point. The absence of physical evidence of explosions outweighs reports of "explosions" in any number.

As far as I’m aware, RGT is the first to refer to me as an anarchist, so now I can check that off the list of names I’ve been called online. And pseudoskeptical am I? How so? What characteristics of a pseudoskeptic have I exhibited? Have I made judgments without full inquiry, such as Pat has done here? Or do I frequently use ad hominems, like RGT does here and elsewhere? Or have I used double standards in the application of my criticisms, like both Pat and RGT are doing here by not criticizing Popular Mechanics for the massive amount of flaws they’ve made? And contrary to what RGT asserts, I haven’t “missed the point” at all regarding the physical evidence of explosives. We’ve covered that issue extensivelyat the 911Debunkers blog, and we’ve addressed attempts to invalidate that evidence as well. Me thinks the man should reconsider who’s the real pseudoskeptic here.

I’m not the first to point these things out, and it shouldn’t be necessary for me to have to keep pointing them out, but as I said at the beginning, Pat’s apparently made up his mind, and that’s evidently never going to change no matter how many times it has to be pointed out to him. 

Read More

Richard Gage Debunks Popular Mechanics, AE911Truth

Antonello talks with Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 truth about the "official story" of September 11, 2001 and debunks NIST and Popular Mechanics attempt to debunk them. The Twin Towers, Building 7 and much more.



Related:

Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality

Read More

Speaking Truth to Power

I’ve recently been involved in a series of debates with science blogger Myles Power over the events of 9/11. Though I’m currently working on Part 2 of my response to his YouTube video series, I need to address one issue that’s recently come to my attention. It seems that Mr. Power has decided to comment on our debate on his website, and he has some interesting things to say. For starters, he refers to me as an “Apex Truther,” which I assume means that he considers me to be a “top” truther of some kind. For the record, if he wanted to speak with a real “Apex” truther, he could simply try and contact any of the scientists in the Movement if he has any concerns. But titles aside, let’s look at the concerns Mr. Power has apparently directed towards me.

Mr. Power discusses my initial response to his video series, noting that it comprises 4349 words. But after reading and listening to Mr. Power’s criticisms of my response, I find it hard to believe that he has taken the time to bother reading the majority of those 4349 words. He repeats his claim that my response “really [does] not say much about anything.” And why does he think this? Because the references I provided in my response “are not peer-reviewed research, but references to other 9/11 conspiracy blog posts.” But I find this argument to be pure hand waving. Even if my sources are not “peer-reviewed” (some of them are, btw), how exactly does that immediately invalidate them? Just because something is not peer-reviewed does not automatically mean it’s wrong. And likewise, just because something is peer-reviewed does not necessarily mean that it’s right. In order to know whether or not my sources back up my claims, one would actually need to read them first. But evidence suggests Mr. Power did not even bother to do that.

For example, he cites one of my references which links to my AE911Truth article What Is Nanothermite? Could It Have Been Used To Demolish The WTC Skyscrapers? What’s his problem this reference?

Some [references] don’t even link to the [sic] what he is talking about. The perfect example is where Adam says “And research shows that it has even been used in the demolition of large steel structures.[36]” But the reference is to another one of his blog post [sic] named “What Is Nanothermite? Could It Have Been Used To Demolish The WTC Skyscrapers?”. Saying something is capable of doing something is not the same as saying that it has Adam.

However, when one reads to the very end of my article, you will see that I wrote the following:

[W]e find that thermite has in fact been used to demolish steel structures in the past. For example, Popular Mechanics itself documents that thermite was used in the demolition of structures such as the Skyride Tower in Chicago and the dome of the German Reichstag. Furthermore, experiments conducted by civil engineer Jonathan Cole have shown that ordinary thermate can be used to effectively cut through steel columns. And as described earlier, the effectiveness of nanothermite is much higher than that of ordinary thermate.

The hyperlinks included above appear in the original quote. I simply provided this article as a reference so that it could be demonstrated that thermite does have the capability to demolish steel structures, and that it has been used to do so in the past. One of the reasons I write these articles is so that I don’t have to keep repeating myself to those who have questions regarding the events of 9/11. I can simply link them to my writings so that their questions get answered. But occasionally I do have to deal with people like Mr. Power, who is evidently fine with just ignoring and dismissing my sources.

But Mr. Power’s biggest problem regards my arguments about the molten metal seen flowing out of the South Tower. I have already gone into great detail on this issue in my initial video response, but let’s look at what Mr. Power has to say on the matter.

One of the more interesting claims made was that the molten material seen flowing from the world trade centre could not have been aluminium because it was glowing white hot. The blog even had an image showing that it was white. This would be impressive if it did not have, directly above it a [sic] image of it glowing orange. The claim was so bizarre that I mentioned it in my final thoughts in my final video. Soon after this Adam made a video response saying that I was incorrect in stating that the molten material was orange in the image. He even included an image of myself with the word “WRONG” in big red letters pasted over the top of it, as if to show just how wrong I was… The rest of the video is one big contradiction and consists of clips of people saying that aluminium both can and can’t glow red/orange.

Now here I will actually accept some fault on my part. In my original response, I quoted from one of my other writings on AE911Truth that discusses the molten metal issue. The original article did not include the images Mr. Power refers to. I wanted to show that the color of the material did indeed indicate that it had reached white-hot temperatures, so I included the color graph but not the image I was comparing it with. However, I should have included the image I originally used as a comparison for the color chart. So, mea culpa. Here is the image of the molten metal that I used as a comparison.

However, my response video also demonstrated that the image I did end up using did NOT show the metal glowing orange. The material is at the very least glowing yellow.

Mr. Power then treats us to a lengthy discussion regarding aluminum and how it glows when heated.

So what is the deal with aluminium? Can it glow orange and was it the material seen flowing from one of the towers? Aluminium can glow but unlike steel it melts before it begins to glow. The majority of people working with molten aluminium don’t waste energy by heating it to the point of it glowing. This has led to many uninformed truthers believing that it can’t. Truthers also claim that aluminium goes back to being silvery instantly when removed from a heat source or whilst being poured. Every metallurgist, chemist, engineer etc. knows aluminium does not have the magical property of turning silver the instant it is removed from a heat source.

Note Mr. Power’s use of hyperbole here. According to him, EVERY metallurgist, chemist, and engineer knows that aluminum does not immediately go from glowing to silver when removed from its heat source. Yet he doesn’t name a single scientist who holds that position. Odd how Mr. Power criticizes my use of references, and then proceeds to provide no references himself when making a specific claim. The fact of the matter is that I cited three individuals in my response video to comment on the molten aluminum vs. molten iron/steel debate; a foundry worker, a chemical engineer, and a physicist. And contrary to what Mr. Power asserts, these individuals do not contradict themselves when discussing this issue. Jerry Lobdill, the chemical engineer I showed in my video, has this to say in one of his papers on the topic:

The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower’s 82^ndfloor could have been aluminum… is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82^nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal.  And therefore, it was molten iron from steel.

And Steven Jones, the physicist I showed, has written that:

[F]alling liquid aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, after falling through air 1-2 meters, regardless of the temperature at which the poured-out aluminum left the vessel. Aluminum does incandesce (glow) like other metals, but faintly, so… falling liquid aluminum [in bright daylight] will appear silvery-gray.

There is no contradiction, except in the imaginations of people like Mr. Power. What these people are saying is that aluminum leaving its heat source will not continue to glow, since the heat is no longer being applied to it. And in the case of the material flowing out of the South Tower, it remained glowing even after falling virtually all the way down to the ground. But Mr. Power has an explanation for why the material glowed so long.

But truthers have many videos of them heating aluminium to the point of it glowing and showing it turn back to silver when they pour it, I hear you say. That’s true but they are missing one large factor, the volume. If you pour a small amount of aluminium, say 10g then it will cool down to the point it no longer glows within a relatively short distance. If you were to repeat the experiment with 100kg then it would take a considerably larger poring [sic] distance to cool down. The amount of material seen flowing from the world trade centre was a considerable volume and therefore it is not unexpected (if it was aluminium) for it to remain glowing.

First note that he contradicts himself here, when saying that aluminum evidently can turn silver instantly after leaving its container. What happened to “every metallurgist, chemist, engineer etc.” saying just the opposite? But his explanation for the glowing material is also problematic. Once again, he provides no reference to back up his claim that the amount of metal makes any difference. Even if he were correct, his whole point is moot anyway. The molten metal flowing out of the building broke off into smaller droplets as it fell to the ground (which btw is exactly what thermite reactions often look like), and yet the material still glowed.

                

Then we are told by Mr. Power that we probably will never know for sure what the material was.

[W]as the molten material seen flowing from the world trade centre aluminium? The truth is we don’t know. The world is chaotic and sometimes no matter how hard people research something, sometimes some questions will always remain unanswered. The best explanation we have is that this molten material is aluminium from the airplane melted by the office fires, mixed with organic material, but we don’t 100% know. This is why I was very careful in the wording I used in my video “It is more than likely that the molten material seen flowing from the tower is aluminium”. I am very aware that I may be wrong but this does not mean that Adams [sic] nonsensical theories about thermite are correct. Any who this article is not really about what happened on September 11th, its [sic] about the apex truther and his willingness to ignore reality to stay secure and safe in his 9/11 conspiracy bubble.

It’s certainly shocking to read these words written by someone who considers himself to be a scientist. He’s apparently forgotten one of the prime factors of science that ensures that it works: experimentation. Repeatable, verifiable experimentation. Debunkers like him are making a specific argument; that aluminum heated up to a certain temperature will behave in a certain way. This is a physical process, and can therefore be repeated in the physical world. It may be that the material was not aluminum, but Mr. Power cannot know this if he never even checks. To somewhat quote Mr. Power, simply saying that something can do something is not the same as proving that it can. One would need to try and recreate what happened to know that for sure. Otherwise we only have Mr. Power’s word to fall back on, which is far from actually conducting a scientific experiment. However, others have done these kinds of experiments repeatedly, and those experiments contradict the idea that the material was aluminum. Questions go unanswered when people simply fail to address them, not because they can’t be proven/disproven. Mr. Power can assert that I am ignoring reality all he wants, but the facts demonstrate that it is he who is ignoring reality by ignoring the experiments members of the Movement have carried out.

But it doesn’t end there. Mr. Power also takes issue with my repeated attempts to show why he is wrong on this issue.

After I posted his video on my Facebook wall Adam began commenting. In the comments section he was repeatedly confronted with testimony from people who work with molten aluminium, as well as video evidence posted from a guy named John. This video evidence proved without a shadow of doubt that aluminium can glow red/orange, that it continues to glow whilst being poured and whilst left standing for a certain period of time. Adams [sic] response when confronted with this overwhelming evidence was unbelievable and every one [sic] who was in the chat was flabbergasted by his response. I found myself with my mouth wide open and hands in the air screaming “WHAT!” in a mixture of confusion and anger.

“John, the videos you provide show aluminum glowing, but keep in mind that aluminum is highly reflective. The glow from the heat source is what is likely shown in the video. Especially the second, given that the aluminum is being poured in the evening. But once aluminum leaves its heat source and does not have any additional heat applied to it, it will turn silver almost instantly.” – Adam Taylor

I want you to take that in for a second. Adam is claiming that the light emitted by the molten aluminium in the videos is due to it being highly reflective and reflecting the glow from the heat source. For this to work molten aluminium must also have the ability to bend space and time to reflect light from a heat source which is not in direct line of sight into the camera, uniformly giving the impression that it is glowing. This was not a one off comment, as Adam was quizzed by others about his ludicrous claims and he repetitively said that the glow was due to it reflecting the heat source.

Once again, Mr. Power has misrepresented what I was trying to convey. I asserted that the glow given off in the videos provided showed that the light given off by the heat source was reflected in the aluminum, and that is what caused it to glow. And Mr. Power omits the fact that I had support on this assertion. My fellow blog contributor ScootleRoyale (Scott Burnan) eventually stepped in and explained exactly what I did, albeit in somewhat more technical terms.

Indeed, aluminum has low emissivity and very high reflectance, which is one of the reasons it’s used on mirrors. And ironically, the two pictures Mr. Power provides in his post do in fact show the heat source directly near the “glowing” aluminum, not bending space and time as he asserts. 

Scootle also pointed out to Mr. Power that even NIST doesn’t use his explanation for the molten material, instead asserting that it was molten aluminum mixed with organics. But as Scootle also showed, this explanation has also been debunked by people in the Truth Movement. So what the heck happened to Scootle’s arguments? Mr. Power acts as though it was only me making such arguments, which is clearly wrong. It’s telling that he provides no link to his thread on Facebook where this whole discussion took place. If you’re on Facebook, you can read the discussion for yourself here.

(For more on why the material could not have been molten aluminum, the following links are recommended:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t4749.html 
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/02/debunking-molten-aluminium-flow-from.html)

Finally, Mr. Power decides to examine my credentials in relation to this discussion.

Now Adam admits that he has no scientific background but says he makes sure to carefully research any subject he is interested in. But you don’t have to have a science background to know this is wrong you just have to live in the real world. A lot of you may think that I am being unfairly harsh to Adam but remember he is not some anonymous troll on the internet. He writes for the debunking the debunkers blog and architects & engineers for 9/11 truth website, even though he is studying Liberal Arts and Political Science and not architecture or engineering. His delusions and arrogance are a product of 11 years of truther evolution. Evolution which has seen weaker truthers leaving the movement after been [sic] convinced by logic and evidence leaving apex truthers like Adam.

This whole dispute over my qualifications and background is rather pointless. Regardless of what I have academically studied (for the record, I actually did take architecture classes in high school. I’m currently studying business and economics at my university), I have made sure to read through the relevant literature and have kept up to date with the science as much as I can. That is the whole point of writing at the Debunking the Debunkers blog. We examine every argument from all sides. It’s true that I am obviously an amateur in the technical sense, but the lack of letters behind a person’s name does nothing to diminish the validity of their work. My work is something that should be read and interacted with before dismissing, and if Mr. Power thinks any differently, then it says more about him than it does me. Contrary to what Mr. Power wants to believe about me, my current beliefs about 9/11 are the result of over five years of careful research and study, and also my determination to find out why almost 3000 people were murdered.

Now, from here on out I am speaking directly to you Mr. Power. Your current responses to me have done more to reflect the type of person you are rather than to refute anything I’ve written about so far. This most recent response of yours is quite telling, as I would not have even known about it had I not just happened to visit your website. In any sort of scientific debate, you might want to actually try and inform your opponent when you’ve posted some kind of response. With all of my rebuttals to your work, I’ve made sure to send them to you as soon as they were finished. But as of writing this, it's been a few days since you’ve posted your response, and it’s obvious you had no intention of informing me about it.

I believe that you are very misinformed about the events of 9/11, and I will admit that some of that is likely due to the truthers you’ve interacted with. As Scootle (Scott) pointed out to you on Facebook, many truthers out there have not studied the events as carefully as we have. That being said, you have still misrepresented the arguments presented by accomplished scientists in the Movement, something that is not as excusable. These scientists have done extraordinary work, and your arrogant dismissal of them due to their involvement in the Truth Movement is simply nonsensical. Obviously arguments over the internet don’t always accomplish much, but I do have an alternate idea. It was recently suggested to me by a commenter on my blog that you and I should have a real one on one debate regarding 9/11. And I think this is a great idea. So if you are ever interested, I would be more than happy to have a lively debate with you on the events of 9/11. How this would be set up I’m not sure. I have connections with radio programs we could possibly appear on. Or, if you have any ideas please feel free to let me know. In fact, you yourself can be in charge of the whole thing if you wish. You can choose the time, method, and format. You can even pick a moderator if you so choose. In any event, I’m sure you are very busy producing your science videos, so I wouldn’t expect this to be an instant thing. But if you are ever interested, please let me know and I’m sure we can work something out.

9/11 is one of the most important events that has ever happened in world history, and I hope you will understand that I treat it as such. This issue is very important to me, and I hope you are able to look past your pre-conceived notions regarding “conspiracy theorists” and realize that all I am seeking is the truth. Part of this process has involved me being skeptical of all sides of the arguments, even the arguments from people in the Truth Movement. But I question if you have taken the time to evaluate the claims made by those in authority, such as NIST, as much as you have evaluated the claims of the Movement. To not do so represents the very ugly side of skepticism, and I hope you have not fallen prey to that. I hope that you will take my comments into consideration, and realize that I care about science and the truth as much as you do.

Sincerely,

-Adam Taylor

Read More

FAQ #8: What Is Nanothermite? Could It Have Been Used To Demolish The WTC Skyscrapers?

Written by Adam Taylor

In order to understand what nanothermite is, we first must understand what ordinary commercial thermite is. Thermite is a mixture of a metal and the oxide of another metal, usually aluminum (Al) and iron oxide (Fe₂O₃), in a granular or powder form. When ignited, the energetic Al-Fe thermite reaction produces molten iron and aluminum oxide, with the molten iron reaching temperatures well in excess of 4000° F. These temperatures are certainly high enough to allow cuts through structural steel, which generally has a melting point of around 2750° F.

There is also a variant of thermite known as thermate, which is a combination of thermite and sulfur, and is more efficient at cutting through steel. This form of thermite is believed to have been used in the demolition of World Trade Center Building 7. Although conventional thermite has the capability to cut through structural steel, it is technically an incendiary and not an explosive.

Nanothermite (also known as superthermite), simply put, is an ultra-fine-grained (UFG) variant of thermite that can be formulated to be explosive by adding gas-releasing substances. A general rule in chemistry is that the smaller the particles of the reactants, the faster the reaction. Nanothermite, as the name suggests, is thermite in which the particles are so small that they are measured in nanometers (one billionth of a meter). The authors of the peer-reviewed Active Thermitic Materials paper, which documents the discovery of these materials in the WTC dust, explain:

Available papers [by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and others] describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to form pyrotechnics or explosives. The thermite reaction involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical reaction with iron oxide:

2Al + Fe₂O₃ ? Al₂O₃ + 2Fe (molten iron), ?H = -853.5 kJ/mole.

The public announcements of the development of nanothermite composite materials as explosives date back several years before 9/11. As Dr. Frank Legge points out , “ researchers were describing methods of preparing nano-sized particles, using them in superthermite, and calling such material ‘explosive’ in 1997. It would therefore not be correct to assert that by 2001, four years later, they would be unable to utilize the material in demolition.”


In additon, 911research.wtc7.net notes the following:

One of the critiques of theories that thermite was used to destroy the World Trade Center skyscrapers asserts that thermite preparations don’t have sufficient explosive power to account for the observed features of the buildings’ destruction. This criticism seems to be uninformed by knowledge of some of the aluminothermic preparations known to exist – particularly those being researched for military applications.

Indeed, as 9/11 researcher Kevin Ryan has shown, there is substantial documentation detailing how nanothermite has been formulated to be explosive. For example, a summary report released at the 2008 AIChE conference by chemists at the University of Houston describes how nano-thermite composites can be engineered to create explosives:

Nanoenergetic thermite materials release energy much faster than conventional energetic materials and have various potential military applications, such as rocket propellants, aircraft fuel and explosives. They are likely to become the next-generation explosive materials, as they enable flexibility in energy density and power release through control of particle size distribution, stoichiometry and choice of fuel and oxidizer.

Some critics have also claimed that neither thermite nor nanothermite has ever been used to demolish steel structures. Even if this assertion were true, it would not be proof in and of itself that these materials could not be used in demolition. As Dr. Legge notes:

It could be true, and probably is true, that the three buildings which came down on 9/11 were the first in which some variation of the thermite reaction was used in demolition. It is however not logical to say something cannot have happened merely because it had not happened before: there has to be a first time for everything. It is certainly true that thermite had been used many times in arson attacks prior to 9/11.

However, we find that thermite has in fact been used to demolish steel structures in the past. For example, Popular Mechanics itself documents that thermite was used in the demolition of structures such as the Skyride Tower in Chicago and the dome of the German Reichstag. Furthermore, experiments conducted by civil engineer Jonathan Cole have shown that ordinary thermate can be used to effectively cut through steel columns. And as described earlier, the effectiveness of nanothermite is much higher than that of ordinary thermate.

To read more about the thermitic materials that were involved in the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers, see the AE911Truth Evidence webpage and our original article about the discovery of these composites in the WTC dust.

(Original article: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/646-faq-8-what-is-nanothermite-could-it-have-been-used-to-demolish-the-wtc-skyscrapers.html)

Read More

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth LA Press Conference

Press conference with Ed Asner

Related:

"A variety of media sources, including Popular Mechanics, BBC and the History Channel, have dismissed the assertions of AE911Truth and presented their own arguments in favor of the theory that jet fuel and office fires were the primary factor in the WTC skyscrapers' collapse." - Source

Here is a point-by-point refutation at AE911Truth, of Popular Mechanics' weak arguments regarding the controlled demolition of the three WTC buildings, written by Debunking the Debunkers blog contributer Adam Taylor

Hold the BBC Accountable - AE911Truth.org Action

Mock Debate: Strongest 9/11 Myth Arguments Crumble as Truth Prevails - The Video of the Debate

Debunking Joseph Nobles/boloboffin of AE911Truth.INFO

'9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out' Trailer & Rebuttal to Pat Curley

Here is the feature-length, low-resolution, pre-release version of the film:



Watch '9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out Final Edition'

Petition to President Obama: 9/11 Families Ask You to Watch “9/11: Explosive Evidence -Experts Speak Out”

Excerpt:

Psychologists help out the conspiracy theorists that won't let go of the official conspiracy theory.



Twenty Four Uncut Interviews from the Film

EXCLUSIVE AE911Truth Colorado 911 Visibility & Richard Gage: Premier Explosive Evidence w Live Panel

AE911Truth Podcast Episode 1

LIVE STREAM WORLD PREMIERE "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out"

WORLD PREMIERE TOUR "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out"

Opening Night - "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out" Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - Beverly Hills, CA

Read More

Jesse Ventura: 63 Documents The Government Doesn't Want You to Read Audio Book

Yes, Ventura has endorsed the theory that Directed Energy Weapons were used to demolish the buildings on 9/11 and the theory that the plane that hit the Pentagon actually flew over it while a bomb exploded, and no he doesn't always have all his facts as straight as we like around here. That said, he does promote a lot of good 9/11 and other info that is widely distributed to the masses. So rather than ignore him we opt to point these things out and hope people find our blog through searching for him and then are able to separate the wheat from the chaff. So, here is his entire latest book, 63 Documents The Government Doesn't Want You to Read, in audio format.



Click here to skip to the 9/11 section on YouTube.

The rest of the 9/11 section can be heard in the beginning of part 2 of 2:



Video from AE911Truth:





Click here to see attempted an debunking of this program debunked.

Related:

Jesse Ventura: American Conspiracies Audio Book

Debunking the Only Bad Review of "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7"

Economics Professor and 9/11 truth advocate Paul Zarembka has written that the work of Mike Williams at the debunking site 911myths.com has caused him "to reconsider [his] prior conclusion of high probability of insider trading in put options"

The June 1 Order - Questions about Changes in Intercept Authority Prior to the Attack

Read More

FAQ #9: Why does AE911Truth Represent Only a Small Percentage of Architects and Engineers?

Written by John-Michael Talboo ae911truth.org

Wednesday, 14 December 2011 16:03

Q. Isn’t it true that the signatories at AE911Truth represent only a small percentage of all architects and engineers worldwide? Regardless of the hundreds of architects and engineers who have signed the AE911Truth petition demanding a new investigation, the evidence for the WTC controlled demolition stands on its own A. Those who raise this point often do so in an attempt to avoid dealing with the scientific evidence brought forth by AE911Truth. The real question should be, ‘Is the evidence that they are bringing forth factual and worthy of a real investigation?’ To that question, the answer is yes. It doesn’t matter whether there is one architect and one engineer, or 12, or 100, or 1,600, or 16,000. Those who question the premises offered because the number of adherents to those premises is deemed too small are engaging in a logical fallacy often referred to as an ‘appeal to majority.’ Consider this example: “7 in 10 doctors say the pharmaceutical drug Lipitor works, therefore it must work.” It doesn’t really matter if 10 in 10 doctors say it works: If there is insufficient evidence to support the statement, we cannot simply trust a majority of opinions – particularly if there is a vested interest in dispensing the drug. If a large number of doctors believe that it works, then all that is really worthy of our time is further investigation for evidence to support the claim, but there is insufficient reason to blindly believe the unproven statement based only on a belief by a majority. AE911Truth accordingly places its spotlight on the evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers, and asks that people not simply believe any explanation blindly, but rather, consider all of the pertinent facts according to the scientific method. It should also be noted that the failure to condemn the official story by such a ‘majority’ should not be viewed as an endorsement of it. One should not assume that the individuals comprising the majority opinion have all been exposed to all the relevant information on the topic. For example, a recent survey revealed that 75% of New Yorkers had never seen video footage of the destruction of WTC Building 7. It’s also true that most architects and engineers know nothing at all about the third worst structural failure in modern history. To illustrate, a general lack of knowledge about the explosive WTC evidence was displayed among A/E professionals at the September 11, 2011, NYC premiere of the AE911Truth film, "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out," when an individual who held a professional engineer's license asked during the Q&A session why he had never heard of AE911Truth. An architect at the same screening was found in tears over the terrible implications of the evidence. Fox News Channel host Geraldo Rivera expressed great surprise when he invited Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer and signer of the AE911Truth petition, on his program in late 2010. For years prior to that, Mr. Rivera was dismissive of the 9/11 truth movement, but stated that he was, "much more open-minded about it… due to the involvement of 9/11 family members and the 1,300 architects and engineers.” In reference to the Remember Building 7 campaign, he said: "What caught my eye is their claim that more than 1,300 architects and engineers examined the evidence about Building 7 and disagree with the official report issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology." It is also important to note that during each of over 200 live presentations of the evidence detailed in our documentary, 9/11: Blueprint for Truth, a show of hands afterwards consistently revealed that at least 85% of those who were either unsure or who accepted the prevailing opinion about the Twin Towers’ destruction beforehand wound up agreeing with the evidence for controlled demolition after seeing it. In addition, there is no way to calculate how many A/E’s are aware of this evidence, but are unwilling to take a public stance on such a controversial matter. Most technical experts have never had a chance to view the WTC7 collapse videos or the other pieces of evidence that confirm the controlled demolition hypothesis Even if the flawed argument of ‘strength in numbers’ is to be seriously considered, the comparison should actually be between the AE911Truth petition signers and those who have publicly supported the official story - after studying the evidence for controlled demolition. The latter group only consists of the several dozen engineers that created the NIST WTC reports, along with a handful of various professionals who have openly advocated NIST’s claims and dismissed those of AE911Truth. This total pales in comparison to the more than 1,600 architects and engineers (as of December 2011) who are calling for an independent investigation of the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7. As AE911Truth civil engineer Jonathan Cole has noted, "There is a good reason why there is no group called 'Architects and Engineers that Publicly Support the Official Story’." The numbers would be embarrassing. Few have even taken the time to examine the more than 12,000 pages of documents intended to obscure the issues and ignore the most critical evidence. Other ignored variables include the fact that there are more than 13,000 additional signatories at AE911Truth, which include many highly credentialed people in other fields equally as relevant to the issue. These ‘other’ petition signers include metallurgists, physicists, explosives experts and demolition contractors. Furthermore, there are other 9/11 truth groups which should also be taken into account that represent hundreds of people credentialed outside the fields of architecture and engineering, such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Finally, as noted by AE911Truth contributing writer Gregg Roberts, the logical fallacy known as ‘moving the goalposts’ is also at play here. Roberts writes, "...'Debunkers'... dismissed our arguments first because, allegedly, no engineers agreed with us. While that was never true to begin with, after AE911Truth was formed and scores of engineers signed the petition, these debunkers predictably moved the goalposts, saying we didn't have any engineers who know anything about heavy steel structures such as tall buildings." However, dozens of structural engineers, such as those featured in the documentary 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out, have rejected the official story in favor of controlled demolition, citing the overwhelming evidence for that conclusion, much of which was entirely ignored by the official reports. With the "argument from missing authority" refuted, Roberts concludes, "the goalposts will no doubt just be moved again by people who simply don't want to face the evidence." Fortunately, these false arguments have not stopped hundreds of architects and engineers and thousands of other concerned citizens from examining the evidence and signing the petition for a real investigation. While strength in numbers is not proof in itself, it amplifies our voice as we share the truth of the World Trade Center catastrophe with the world.

Read More

If you were keeping score, Mohr probably did win the debate...

But that does not mean his premise is correct.

Pat Curley recently pointed out that AE911Truth has apparently decided to cancel releasing the DVD of Richard Gage and Chris Mohr's debate. While the obvious implication behind this is that Richard lost the debate, this still does not change the fact that Mohr was wrong on numerous points. Here's my take on the debate.



It must be remembered that Richard Gage is only one member of the Truth Movement. One wonders how the debate would have gone if Chris Mohr had debated any of these people:











Or any of these people.

Ultimately, I would have liked to have seen the debate, but I am still glad there was a debate at all.

“It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.” -Joseph Joubert

Related Info:

Richard Gage and Chris Mohr Debate WTC Collapse

Magic, Mythology or Science?

2/25/11 Answers from NIST to Questions by Chris Mohr, Journalist

Read More

9/11: Explosive Evidence - Tony Szamboti, M.E. - Mechanical Engineer

Factual back-up for Tony Szamboti's claims:

-1:47 South wall of WTC1 buckling/columns bowing inward

-4:00 Manipulated sagging models

-4:22 NIST stopped at “collapse initiation”

-4:37 Problems with Dr. Bazant’s analysis

-5:58 NIST’s distorted tilt

-6:33 Bazant’s deceleration flaws

-8:46 Verinage demolitions refute arguments

-9:33 Upper section destroyed, therefore can’t crush lower section

-10:07 NIST “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”

-11:02 Exaggerated sagging

-12:43 No explanation for high temperatures

-14:00 NIST misrepresents design loads of the Towers

-15:34 Small amount of steel saved for analysis

-16:36 No explanation for the molten flow from WTC2

-17:50 NIST acknowledges WTC7 free fall

-18:36 NIST’s WTC7 model doesn’t match the videos

-19:40 NIST’s model resembles natural collapse, but not WTC7 collapse

-20:00 NIST’s illogical reasons for dismissing controlled demolition

-21:06 Secret retrofit of the Citibank Tower refutes NIST’s arguments

-22:20 NIST misrepresents WTC7 construction

-23:11 NIST refuses to release data

-24:10 WTC7 sulfidized steel

-25:30 No other steel from WTC7 saved for analysis

-25:55 NIST never looked at any WTC7 steel in their investigation

-26:12 NIST misrepresents fire severity

-26:40 South Tower fire severity

-26:55 John Gross denies molten metal at Ground Zero

-27:57 NIST admits they never tested for explosives

-28:10 Over 100 first responders reported experiencing explosions

-28:52 NIST fails to follow NFPA 921 guidelines

Related Info:

Structural Aspects of Building 7’s Collapse: Why the NIST Report is Non-explanatory by Tony Szamboti

Read More

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth debunk Judy Wood

Earlier this year, Dr. Judy Wood put out her new book titled Where Did The Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11




Fortunately, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have recently made their position very clear on this matter regarding Directed Energy Weapon theories. A new article written by Jonathan Cole, Richard Gage and Gregg Roberts shows many of the absurdities of Judy Wood's claims. The article is reproduced here, with some extra links I have added:

AE911Truth FAQ #6: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?

Written by Jonathan Cole, P.E., Richard Gage, AIA, and Gregg Roberts

(Editor's Note: We continue to make enhancements to this article as time permits, including supplying additional hyperlinks. The article should be finalized in a few days at the most, but we wanted to get something published sooner rather than later for the benefit of all those who have questions about Judy Wood's new book.)

Some have suggested that much of the structural steel of the World Trade Center skyscrapers was turned to dust, or “dustified” – a term used by Judy Wood, the primary proponent of this hypothesis – with some type of directed energy weapon (DEW). Some of the observations cited by Wood include the voluminous dust created during the Twin Towers’ destruction, the “craters” in WTC 5 and 6, “toasted” cars, and small holes in glass windows.

While Wood and AE911truth agree that the official story of an “inevitable” collapse by gravity alone is impossible because it conflicts with laws of physics, we completely differ on the mechanism of the destruction. Crucially, once there is proof and consensus that the official story violates elementary laws of physics, our major scientific task has been accomplished. The remaining task is the political challenge of mobilizing support for a legitimate investigation.

Of course the science of the collapse of the Towers and Building 7 can be advanced beyond the mere conclusion that the official story must be false. But it is imperative that anyone serious advancing understanding of the mechanisms of collapse hew closely to scientific methodology. This is crucial to earn the 9/11 movement the public respect it deserves, rather than to cast it into the role of perpetrating "junk science."

The scientific method requires us to look at all the available evidence and then assess various explanations for their ability to account for the evidence. At some point, the inferior explanations must be discarded if there is to be continued progress in an investigation, just as in pure science. It is our opinion that the DEW hypothesis is not just weak; it is not supported by the evidence at all. We provide only a general discussion here, referring the reader to references for a thorough understanding.

A Hypothesis in Search of Facts

One of the observations that seems to have motivated Wood to come up with her directed energy weapon hypothesis is that the debris pile at Ground Zero does not seem to be tall enough to contain enough steel to equal what was in the Twin Towers before they came down. She departs from verifiable fact quite early with this claim. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, performed the first technical review of what brought down the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Even in its report, FEMA acknowledges (inconveniently for the official story, which cannot account for this fine destruction of the Twin Towers) that roughly 90% of the Twin Towers' mass fell outside their footprints. Indeed, the entire plaza was covered with steel pieces and assemblies. Some of the structural steel was thrown as far away as the Winter Gardens.

Given all this, there is no reason to expect a taller debris pile at Ground Zero than the photographs show. Wood's belief that some of the steel must have been turned into dust rests on a completely spuriously interpretation of the visual evidence. Her hypothesis is an attempt to solve a nonexistent problem. As we will show, it can be sustained only by additional poor analysis and leaps of faith, just like the official explanation.

Damage to Core Box Columns

Many of the core box columns found in the WTC rubble had concave sides. Most were broken straight across at the weld points. Often, one side of the column’s welds were deeply oxidized and even torn away. Explosions ripping across the weld points, as explained by Gordon Ross, offer an explosive hypothesis that demonstrates a mechanism with results resembling observations in the WTC rubble.

In order for the core column breaks to be so straight and horizontal, DEW technology would have to have the following features:

• Be capable of a sufficiently sharp focus for it to attack all or most of the columns at a given level at the same time, but only the ends of those columns;

• Be capable of having its target level move down the building without changing the angle at which it cuts the columns;

• Be capable of having its target level move down at two-thirds of freefall acceleration (as measured by David Chandler), and perhaps other acceleration rates;

• Be capable of having multiple target levels, so that it could destroy the falling upper section of each tower while also destroying the lower section, to create the illusion that the upper section is crushing the lower section, even though that upper section is in itself being destroyed; and

• Be capable of destroying only those connections between steel columns that still form part of the buildings’ structures, leaving untouched the hundreds or thousands of steel assemblies and steel pieces that can be seen flying out of each tower in huge clouds.

In addition to all these features, Wood's alleged secret DEW technology would have to be able to pulverize most of the concrete in both Towers and Building 7, and in the case of the Twin Towers, fling 90% of the buildings' mass outside their footprints. such technology would also have to be able to account for the evidence relating to molten iron, nano-engineered energetic material, and the sights and sounds of explosions described below. Why posit sophisticated secret technology to explain these observations, when some combination of thermitic incendiaries and explosives placed throughout the buildings can explain them much more simply, without making wild assumptions? This is a clear violation of Occam's Razor, which says that the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts should be given the greatest credibility.

In fact, the destruction of the Twin Towers matches fully the characteristics of “high-order damage” as they are listed in the NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations: all three WTC skyscrapers were completely destroyed, the structural units (perimeter walls, etc.) were shattered; heavy pieces from the Twin Towers were thrown horizontally at 70 mph over large distances, and most of the concrete floors were finely pulverized. That the common concept of high-order damage is met by the evidence at the WTC means that explosions with a high rate of pressure rise occurred. The use of high explosives can also explain all the evidence that matches the characteristics of high order damage.

The case for explosives is also supported by over one hundred orally recorded accounts by FDNY first responders, many of whom reported sounds of explosions and patterned flashes of light, and with many interpreting the skyscraper destruction as being caused by “secondary devices.”

The Fall of the “Spire”

Wood asserts that the steel “turned to dust.” One of the key observations that she uses to support this conclusion is the dust that appeared when a portion of the North Tower's core finally came down about 12 seconds into the destruction of the North Tower, several seconds after the floors that used to surround that core structure had been pulverized or had fallen to the ground.

However, upon studying the video of the “spire,” we find that the steel did not “turn to dust” (see for example the next to last segment in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W0-W582fNQ). The spire clearly simply fell after being attacked by explosive charges, leaving behind, in mid-air, the pulverized concrete that had been resting on, or statically stuck to, the steel. As is well known, air resistance causes dust to fall slower than macroscopic pieces of structural steel (note the final remaining column falling faster than the dust in the third photograph of the sequence).

If the structural steel was “dustified,” one would expect to see at least some evidence for partially “dustified” steel members in the debris. Yet nothing of the sort is shown in Wood’s book or website. One would also expect a much higher fraction of the dust to be found to consist of iron than the 5.87% maximum detected by RJLee Group (see below). the massive structural steel was roughly equal to the mass of concrete in the towers, and there was not enough gypsum wallboard to dilute the iron below a 6% proportion, if any significant fraction of it had been “dustified.”

The “toasted” tops of vehicles

Wood suggests that the tops and other portions of damaged vehicles near Ground Zero may also be attributed to DEW yet doesn’t provide a possible scenario as to how DEW might account for this phenomenon, particularly in view of the fact that the towers reached high above ground while the cars were on the ground.

Partially unignited thermite, thermate, and/or nanothermite falling through the air as it continued to react would have produced molten iron droplets. A still-reacting thermitic mixture drifting down onto the cars in the dust plumes could easily account for the singing of their paint and even igniting the cars (since the highly exothermic thermite reaction can quickly reach temperatures exceeding 4000° F.) A reporter and a firefighter (see the last two links at the end of this article), and perhaps others, described the dust cloud as feeling hot – whereas Wood claims that the dust clouds were cool.

Previously molten iron microspheres found in the dust

Substantial quantities of previously molten iron spheres, up to 150 times the background level of iron in dust from other buildings in the area, were found and documented by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and The RJ Lee Group (RJ Lee). RJ Lee found the microspheres in amounts up to 6% inside the skyscraper across the street from WTC 2. Other scientists estimate a total of 10-100 tons of microspheres altogether throughout Lower Manhattan. These spheres were so plentiful that RJ Lee used them as a “signature component” of the WTC Dust and the EPA discussed their use as signature markers. RJ Lee notes that the microspheres were “created during the event,” that is, they were not created by welding operations during the cleanup of Ground Zero. The previously molten state of these microspheres indicates that they were created by temperatures hot enough to melt iron. Office fires and jet fuel fires, which do not produce such high temperatures, could not possibly have produced them.



The chemical signature of the examined spheres matched the chemical signature of spheroids produced by common thermite and by red/gray nanothermite composite chips found in the WTC dust, indicating that thermitic reactions took place as part of the towers’ demise. The DEW hypothesis does not address this and cannot account for it – because it is inconsistent with the extreme heat required to produce it.

A video, photos, and dozens of witnesses document molten metal

Molten metal is observed pouring from WTC 2 several minutes before its final destruction. Its bright white/yellow color demonstrates that it is not aluminum, but steel or iron, and that its temperature far exceeds that which can be produced by jet fuel or office fires. FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team report, May 2002, Appendix “C” documents molten iron invading the grain boundaries of the WTC structural steel. A revealing NY Times article called this “the deepest mystery” of the investigation.

Thermitic materials (thermite, thermate or nanothermite) produce molten iron at 4,500° F temperatures. They can easily cut through steel and create the ubiquitous iron spheroids. (See YouTube.com, “9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate”.) The DEW hypothesis does not explain this phenomenon. In fact Wood denies that these temperatures were ever reached, without even addressing this evidence, which is documented by official and unofficial sources.

Active unignited nanothermite found in the dust

An international research team found nano-engineered thermite, or "nanothermite," in each of the four samples of dust examined as part of a peer-reviewed study. Nanothermite, also known as superthermite, was developed in US national laboratories in the late 1990s as an "energetic composite material," meaning it could serve as a pyrotechnic substance to ignite other energetic materials, as a rocket fuel, or as an explosive unto itself with advantages over conventional high explosives.

One key advantage of such substances for the purposes of a surreptitious controlled demolition would be that it would not be detected by conventional chemical tests nor by trained bomb-sniffing dogs. Another advantage is that these substances can be chemically tuned to adjust their shockwave characteristics, which presumably includes the amount and nature of the sound generated when they go off.

The red/gray nanothermite chips constitute direct evidence that supports the explosive/incendiary hypothesis. The DEW hypothesis does not explain how or why this engineered energetic material was found throughout the dust. DEW proponents merely wave away the evidence, which was carefully documented in a 25-page peer-reviewed paper, without addressing any of the specific points made in the paper. Particles of aluminum and iron oxide 1,000 times smaller in diameter than a human hair, intimately intermixed and set in a bed of organic material capable of generating gas pressure when heated, were photographed, analyzed by x-rays, and he did in a calorimeter to the point where they reacted to produce iron-rich microspheres precisely resembling those found in the World Trade Center dust by researchers independent of this team. These findings conclusively account for the observed high-temperature phenomena described in the next section.



Persistent Extreme Heat

Extremely high temperatures at Ground Zero are documented by various sources, for example in thermal images by MTI and NASA, USGS aerial photo 9-16-01, by photographs, and by numerous witness accounts. The American Society of Safety Engineers reported that “the debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF.” Wood denies that these temperatures were reached, without addressing the ample evidence for them.



Craters observed in WTC 5 and 6

Wood makes a great deal of the holes that are visible in pictures of WTC 5 and 6, purporting to find no other explanation than exotic weaponry. These holes are easily explained by the thousands of tons of falling steel, smashing through the tops of the adjacent structures. Steel perimeter column sections from the towers can be clearly seen inside these holes.






Hundreds of eyewitness accounts of multiple explosions

The many qualified witnesses to the sights and sounds of explosions are easily explained with the controlled demolition by explosive hypothesis – but not with the DEW hypothesis.

Conclusion

We do not support the DEW hypothesis because it is not supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction is well supported by the evidence. In addition, we believe the DEW theory raises far more questions than it answers, such as the energy requirements and other issues outlined in the suggested references listed below.

Based on what we know today, it is our opinion that the destruction scenario that best addresses the evidence is some type of explosive demolition using some combination of thermitic incendiaries and explosives that were placed inside the structures.

We recommend the AE911Truth DVD "9/11: Blueprint for Truth" for a more complete review of the above evidence, and the following technical papers for a more complete review of the DEW hypothesis.

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins

Solving the Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins

Supplemental: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins

Reply to Reynolds & Wood by Steven E. Jones, 8/25/2006

A Response to Reynolds and Wood by Frank Legge

5 and 6 World Trade Center: What Caused the Large Holes Visible from Above by Jim Hoffman

ERROR: 'Building 6 Was Cratered by a Huge Explosion by Jim Hoffman

Each Tower Disappeared into a Volcano-like Cloud of Dust by Jim Hoffman

Dust Clouds: Descriptions of Dust Clouds in the Oral Histories by Jim Hoffman

*My footnote

To all those out there who buy into Judy Wood's theory: Yes, Judy Wood may have fairly impressive credentials, but as we already know, that does not make someone immune to spreading disinformation.

Read More