Kevin Barrett has hosted some 9/11 related interviews this month.
I thought his interview with Frank Greening, while interesting from the point of view of proving the BBC to be even bigger liars than previously thought possible, was more interesting in its claims that some of the Harrit paper crowd (Jones, Harrit, etc.) were not taking Greening seriously. Perhaps Kevin will follow that lead up later.
The interview with mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti was a knockout. Tony goes into extensive detail about the fallacies surrounding WTC7 in particular.
The interview with Barry Kissin, whom I had heard speak only about the 9/11 anthrax attacks, displayed his comprehensive grasp on the issue of Saudi involvement and provided some excellent pushback on Kevin’s tendency to focus only on Israeli/Zionist involvement.
Finally, Wayne Madsen provides an update on the inside job aspects of 9/11 and adds to the discussion about Congressional knowledge and foreknowledge as discussed by Barry Kissin.
While I still have reservations about the limited hangout potential in the recent “revelations” about the Saudi’s role in 9/11, there is no question that a serious look at these connections would inevitably lead to closer scrutiny of the close relationship between the Saud family and the US government in general and the Bush crime family in particular.
Happy listening and best wishes for the new year!
How to Debunk WTC Thermite
Posted on December 8, 2013 by Kevin Ryan
The evidence for the presence of thermite at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11 is extensive and compelling. This evidence has accumulated to the point at which we can say that WTC thermite is no longer a hypothesis, it is a tested and proven theory. Therefore it is not easy to debunk it. But the way to do so is very straightforward and is in no way mysterious.
To debunk the thermite theory, one must first understand the evidence for it and then show how all of that evidence is either mistaken or explained by other phenomena. Here are the top ten categories of evidence for thermite at the WTC.
Read article here
- See more at: http://xrepublic.tv/node/6452#sthash.7HipKd1a.dpuf
Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 34, November 2012
Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New
York on September 11, 2001?By Dr. André Rousseau
We would like to thank Tod Fletcher, who provided editorial assistance by revising an
earlier version of this article.
The seismic signals propagating from New York on September 11, 2001,
recorded at Palisades (34 km) and published by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
of Columbia University (LDEO), have here been subjected to a new critical study
concerning their sources. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the nature of the
waves, their velocities, frequencies, and magnitudes invalidate the official explanations
which imply as sources the percussion of the twin towers by planes and the collapses of
the three buildings, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.
First of all, we show the contradictions in the official explanation between the
seismic data and the timing of the events. Then we point out that it is strange that
identical events (percussions of identical towers on the one hand, and collapses of
identical towers on the other hand) at the same location would have generated seismic
sources of different magnitudes. We demonstrate that only strong explosives could be the
cause of such seismic waves, in accordance with the observed low frequencies
Link to full article here
Ferdinando Imposimato Points to AE911truth Evidence
[Editor’s Note: The following is an excerpt of a letter written by Italian Supreme Court President Ferdinando Imposimato for the Journal of 9/11 Studies. While AE911Truth does not speculate on who was involved in the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers, we applaud Imposimato for speaking out on this important issue, calling attention to the explosive 9/11 evidence, and, most importantly, pursuing justice.]
Ferdinando Imposimato is the Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy and a former Senator who served on the Anti-Mafia Commission in three administrations. He is the author or co-author of seven books on international terrorism, state corruption, and related matters, and a Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy.
The reports of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), November 20, 2005, set forth the following conclusions: The airplanes that struck each of the Twin Towers caused a breach as well as an explosion evidenced by a giant fireball. The remaining jet fuel flowed onto the lower floors, sustaining the fires. The heat from the fires deformed the building structures and both towers collapsed completely from top to bottom. Very little that was of any size remained after these events except steel as well as aluminum fragments and the pulverized dust from the concrete floors.
World Trade Center 7 also collapsed–in a way that was inconsistent with the common experience of engineers. All three buildings collapsed completely, but Building 7 was not hit by a plane. WTC7’s collapse violated common experience and was unprecedented.
The NIST report does not analyze the actual nature of the collapses. According to experts at the Toronto Hearings (Sept. 8-11, 2011), the collapses had features that indicate controlled explosions. I agree with architect Richard Gage and engineer Jon Cole, both highly experienced professionals [from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth – now numbering 1,700 strong], who have arrived at their conclusions through reliable tests, scientific proof, and the visual testimony of people above suspicion, including firefighters and victims. The authoritative theologian David Ray Griffin has described very precisely why the hypothesis of controlled demolition should be taken into consideration. Various witnesses heard bursts of explosions.
According to NIST the collapse of Building 7 was due to fires provoked by the collapse of the twin towers. Chemist and independent researcher Kevin Ryan, however, has demonstrated that NIST gave contradictory versions of the collapse of Building 7. In a preliminary report NIST declared that WTC7 was destroyed because of fires provoked by diesel fuel stored in the building, while in a second report this fuel was no longer considered the cause of the building’s collapse. Additional comments on the NIST version of events have been made by David Chandler, another expert witness at the Journal of 9/11 Studies Letters, September 2012 Toronto Hearings. Despite NIST’s claim of three distinct phases of collapse, Chandler pointed out that many available videos show that for about two and a half seconds the acceleration of the building cannot be distinguished from freefall. NIST has been obliged to agree with this empirical fact as pointed out by Chandler, and now understandable by everyone.
The only possibility for achieving justice is to submit the best evidence concerning the involvement of specific individuals in 9/11 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and ask him to investigate according to the articles 12, 13, 15 and 17, letters a and b, of the Statute of the ICC, recalling also the preamble of the Statute:
“Recognizing that such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and the well being of the world,”
“Affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation, ”
“Determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prosecution of such crimes, Recalling that the duty of every state to exercise its jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes, … ”
Previous articles in this series
DomPost Conspiracies article of June 23, 2012
DomPost June 23 2012 Conspiracy Theory Course Advertorial – Part 1
On Page 2, there were several individual articles apparently meant to cover some of the Conspiracy Theories to be examined in the projected course. The most prominent article was on 9/11. Here is a partial look at it.
” WHAT HAPPENED: On September 11, 2001, hijackers from the terrorist group al Qaeda took over four commercial aircraft. American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airline (sic) Flight 175 were flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, causing them to collapse. American Airlines flight 77 was crashed into the Pentagon in Virginia. A fourth flight, United Airlines Flight 93, was headed for Washington DC but crashed into a field in Pennsylvania when passengers wrestled control back from the hijackers.”
In this advertorial covering the topic of Conspiracy Theories, Ms McBride presents the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) as fact, which it isn’t, and does not mention that the OCT is itself a Conspiracy Theory.
“CONSPIRACY THEORY: Within hours of the fall of the Twin Towers, suggestions began to spread that the towers had fallen in too uniform a fashion – much like a controlled demolition.”
“The early early theories focused on anomalies in the public evidence,”
False, unless by “anomalies” you mean bald faced lies from government officials, and the illegal destruction of evidence at a crime scene. Otherwise, I don’t know what she means by “anomalies in the public evidence”.
“before moving onto the theory that the government of the United States had arranged the attacks in an elaborate coverup.”
That is a straw man argument followed by a nonsensical statement. Ms McBride presents an exaggerated, cartoon version of the prevailing Conspiracy Theory so that it may be ridiculed for its simple-mindedness, then states that people said that the attacks were arranged in an elaborate coverup. Doesn’t the coverup come *after* the event?
Ms McBride refers to the film Loose Change, which appeared in its first version in 2005, then mentions the theory that states that the Twin Towers and “a third tower in the World Trade Center complex known as Tower 7 were brought down by explosives set up inside.” True!
The theory has been written about by dozens of authors; with most arguing that the impact of the aircrafts and resulting fires would not have weakened the buildings enough to cause such a large-scale collapse. They have said Tower 7 had only sustained minor damage when it too tumbled down.
If Ms McBride is going to use an Ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority) fallacy, she should at least cite one out of her dozens of authorities. The choice of words here is typical of OCT defenders. If you have seen the videos of the destruction of WCT1 and WCT2, the word “collapse” likely does not spring to mind. “Massive explosions followed by pyroclastic dust clouds” is more like it. She writes that Tower 7 (usually referred to as WTC7) “tumbled down”. Video footage by major television networks show a different sort of phenomena from the top-down destruction of the taller towers, a classic controlled demolition. “Tumbling down” and “collapsing rapidly into its own footprint” are clearly not the same thing.
However, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has stated that the crashes, plus the fires caused, led to the gravity-driven collapse of the buildings. It was said the fire caused the steel structure of the buildings to weaken significantly, leading to the collapses. They said Tower 7 was also brought down by the spread of fires from the nearby towers, which weakened the building’s structure.
NIST is a political body, a division of the United States Department of Commerce, not an independent scientific research organisation, as its name implies. NIST was loyal to its government masters and produced a highly disputed story about the destruction of WTC7. Perhaps the best answer to the NIST report is David Ray Griffin’s The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False. Dr Griffin exposes the NIST report as a scientific fraud, wherein they ignored evidence, lied about other evidence, and just made up evidence when it suited them.
Theorists have disputed NIST’s findings, stating the US government had orchestrated the attacks to give them a catalyst to begin a war with Iraq.
I’ll let that one go except to point out that it is a non sequitur.
It is often argued that the removal of the debris from Ground Zero without a forensic investigation is evidence that a coverup was being carried out. However, most scientists and researchers have critiqued the theories, saying the science used is shaky and lacks evidence.
Whatever else you may choose to believe about 9/11, you must agree that it was a crime. The wholesale removal of evidence from a crime scene before an investigation can be pursued by the proper authorities is itself a crime. You shouldn’t have to argue that; it just is. If Ms McBride has evidence that “most scientists and researchers” have critiqued the theory that the illegal removal of evidence from a crime scene is not a crime, I would like to see her sources.
Perhaps Ms McBride was just having a bad non sequitur day, and meant to write that some scientists, such as the scientists at Popular Mechanics Magazine agree with the OCT. Other scientists not working for a mainstream DIY magazine have found evidence of military grade explosives in WTC dust, and demonstrate that there are many other problems with the OCT.
No investigations carried out have found evidence to indicate the US government orchestrated the attacks.
I will agree that no investigations carried out by the US government “have found evidence to indicate the US government orchestrated the attacks”. That is hardly to be expected. This claim is reminiscent of the claim by NIST that they found no evidence of explosives in the WTC7 debris, the reason being that they did not look for evidence of explosives. At any rate, her last sentence is a transparently clumsy straw man argument that attempts to discredit and/or ignore the actual provable claims made by independent scientists and researchers.
This article, with its non sequiturs and (s)tumbling logical fallacies could only placate the most somnolent and credulous of readers. Next time we will see how Ms McBride tries to convince her readers of the Lone Nut theory.
“I sense that you think there’s a conspiracy here– but you might be right,” Hayton concluded.
Accelerant is on the chips, not in them
The study by Dr. Jim Millette has confirmed that the red/gray chips found in the dust associated with the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) are paint chips. The WTC steel featured several different primer paints, with Tnemec used for the perimeter columns, and Laclede – which contains no zinc – for the floor trusses. However, this does not mean that the paper by Harrit et al is useless. On the contrary, the Harrit study did find physical evidence of accelerants. The paint chips are certainly not thermitic; they contain no elemental aluminum. But they were contaminated by a small amount of accelerants, with elemental Al part of the composition. The most likely source is fireproofing that was directly adjacent to the primer and was “upgraded” between 1996 and 1998. For WTC1, there is an exact match between the five floors of the impact zone (94-98) and the five contiguous floors with upgraded SFRM of a high density compared to SFRM on other upgraded floors. When Harrit’s chips were heated to 700 °C, the primary exotherm seen in differential scanning calorimeter (DSC) traces denotes combustion of the paint’s organic material, which is probably Laclede primer’s epoxy binder. The yield from thermite – or from aluminum reacting with iron oxide in the paint – was up to five orders of magnitude lower than the yield from organic material. This would explain the absence of a secondary peak from thermite, although the Intermont curve has an interesting trough at 640 °C and then gradually goes into positive territory at 700 °C. The MacKinlay samples’ 395 °C peaks are consistent with polyisobutylene (BR), used as a binding agent in plastic explosives. Millette found no elemental Al after an MEK soak, and no evidence of thermite. Harrit et al not only found elemental Al after an MEK soak, but also iron-rich spheres in the residue after chips were subjected to heating in a DSC – evidence that a thermite reaction had occurred. The conflicting results may be due to the fact that Millette’s chips were “washed in clean water” prior to analysis, whereas Harrit’s “samples were left unwashed and uncoated unless otherwise specified”. Elemental aluminum and oxidizer(s) from the accelerant weren’t in the chips; they were on the outer surface of the red layer, which corresponds to the left-hand side of Harrit’s Figures (12) (b) and (15) (c). Information contained within this page not only proves beyond all doubt that OBL and KSM did not orchestrate 9/11, but identifies the principal perpetrators.
Link to paper here
by travellerev 12 September 2012
A remark I often hear about my “obsessions” is why still go on about it. It happened so long ago!
Well here is a good reason to keep on at it: eleven years later 50 forms of cancer have been added to the list of diseases the first responders can get compensation for. Just imagine for 70.000 men and women 911 never stopped with many of them having died as the result of the toxins they breathed in on that fateful day and in the days after.
What is really worrying and perplexing is that in some of the long tissue of first responders Nano Thermite residue has been found.
Every day since then has been a battle for them. Not against the terrorists but against their own government. Now why is that I wonder?
Read article here