Scholars file challenges to NIST reports on 9/11

Madison, WI (PRWEB) March 30, 2007 – Some members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a non-partisan organization of students, experts and scholars dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about 9/11, have filed complaints against the National Institute of Standards and Technology for legal defects in its studies of events of 9/11 involving the Twin Towers and Building 7. James H. Fetzer, the society’s founder, believes these actions have the potential to break the back of the cover-up that has enveloped these events.

“It would be nice if the government would tell us the truth about our own history,” Fetzer said. “But all we get from the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State and former Secretary of Defense is a ‘song and dance’ that keeps the American people in ignorance.” The complaints have been filed by Ed Hass, who edits The Muckraker Report; Morgan Reynolds, past Chief Economist in the Department of Labor in the Bush administration; and Judy Wood, former professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson University. Reynolds and Wood are both members of the society.

The complaints, which are archived and available to the public at, fall into three categories. The complaint by Ed Haas concerns claims that NIST has advanced asserting that it has found “no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event” in relation to Building 7. Haas alleges that this is false and misleading insofar as NIST has never looked for evidence of this kind. Moreover, NIST denies having found any “corroborating evidence” supporting the hypothesis that the building was brought down by controlled demolition, which is inconsistent with evidence it acknowledges.

Indeed, in his complaint, Haas observes that the gross features of the collapse of Building 7—a 6.6 second, complete, symmetrical, and total collapse—qualify as evidence of controlled demolition of that building, which contradicts NIST’s affirmations. In a second complaint, Haas observes that conflicts of interest affect using many of the same scientists, experts, subcontractors, and others who were responsible for research on the Twin Towers to conduct research on Building 7 as well, which tends to taint their objectivity.

“Building 7 has been of special interest lately,” Fetzer remarked, “since archival footage from the BBC has been discovered, where a female reporter is explaining that Building 7 has also collapsed.” The problem is that the building only collapsed at 5:20 PM, while and she is reporting it at 4:57 PM, which is 23 minutes too soon. “You can find a dozen articles about it on, which is the society’s web site. You can even see Building 7 clearly standing in the background over her left shoulder in these news video clips, which raises disturbing questions about the media in all of this.”

The second complaint, which has been filed by Morgan Reynolds, disputes NIST’s explanations of the jetliner-shaped holes in the Twin Towers. According to NIST, the North Tower (WTC-1) was hit by Flight AA 11, a Boeing 767, traveling at an estimated 443 mph, yet its tail section disappears within 0.25 seconds. And it claims that the South Tower (WTC-2) was hit by Flight UA 175, another Boeing 767, flying at an estimated speed of 542 mph, where its tail section disappears into the building in approximately 0.20 seconds.

Reynolds observes that the planes are 159 feet in length, which means that, on the NIST account, Flight AA 11 lost only 2% of its speed in despite massive resistance from a steel/concrete building. Similarly for Flight UA 175, the airspeed of which did not decline in spite of its impact with steel walls and concrete floors, as well as the dense steel core consisting of 47 columns. The complaint contends that real jetliners would have been dramatically slowed by the impact, which implies that the NIST report is not only factually wrong but also physically impossible in violating physical laws.

“Morgan poses a substantial number of anomalies that NIST will be hard pressed to explain,” Fetzer said. “But the greatest challenge to its scientific integrity is posed by the complaint filed by Judy Wood, which is a veritable tour de force.” While the documents filed by Haas and Reynolds run less than ten pages in length, the one filed by Wood runs forty-three pages, including photographs and other supporting evidence. “It is a powerful critique that demonstrates the government has completely and utterly failed to explain what happened to the World Trade Center on that tragic and fateful day.”

Fetzer characterizes Dr. Wood, who has degrees in civil engineering, engineering mechanics, and materials engineering science, as the leading expert on technical aspects of the destruction of the World Trade Center. “There are experts in many areas of science and of engineering studying 9/11,” he explained, “but she has degrees that are centrally focused on critical areas in which competence is required to begin to understand what happened on 9/11. No one else in the 9/11 community comes close to her level of expertise.”

Her complaint, technically, Request for Correction, like the others, asserts that the basic integrity of NIST’s report, called NCSTAR 1, is lacking because, by its own admission, NIST did not investigate the actual destruction of the World Trade Center Towers: “The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.” This means that the NIST report does not actually include the collapse behavior of the towers after the conditions for their initiation were realized, which NIST refers to as “the probable collapse sequence.”

“NIST, of course, claims that it was the impact of the aircraft and the jet-fuel based fires, which caused the steel to weaken and bring about a collapse,” Fetzer said. “But the buildings were designed to withstand such occurrences and the steel had been certified by UL to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for several hours without weakening. The fires only burned around 500 degrees for less than an hour (in the case of WTC-2) and an hour-and-a-half (in the case of WTC-1), so NIST really doesn’t even reach the point at which a ‘collapse’ of any kind would be ‘initiated.’ The situation is quite remarkable.”

Thus, to this day, Americans have not been given any explanation whatsoever for the destruction of the WTC complex that comports with information and quality standards. In contrast, Dr. Wood's RFC contains a stunning array of visual evidence that confirms highly unusual energy effects seen by all as the Twin Towers were almost instantaneously destroyed in less time than it would take a billiard ball to hit the ground if dropped from the height of 110 stories, a result she demonstrates in relation to the law of falling bodies.

Wood also points out other compelling evidence that NIST ignored, including visual evidence of unusual and unexplained devastation to vehicles parked blocks away from the WTC complex, including some with disintegrated engine blocks but unexploded gas tanks. And she notes the peculiar damage of perpendicular gouges in WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6, as well as other distinctive effects, such as cylindrical holes in these buildings and even in the street, which remain unexplained by NIST to this day. “These outcomes appear to be inexplicable if only conventional explosives, much less fires, were involved,” Fetzer said. “Cars burned, paper did not.”

Indeed, Wood goes further and points out that the huge quantity of dust resulting from the visible process of steel disintegration, some of which was captured on film, combined with these other effects suggest the probable use of high-tech, directed energy weapons. Another element of Wood's proof is the almost complete lack of even a rubble pile at the WTC complex. “Where did it go?”, she asks. Whatever the source of energy and heat may have been, it had no effect upon massive quantities of paper floating around the city.

Jerry Leaphart, a Connecticut-based trial lawyer, who is also a member of Scholars, represents the complainants in this effort. Leaphart states that NIST now has 60 days to respond to the RFC. After that, an appeal can be taken or other legal action could be pursued. “Anyone with a serious interest in what happened at the World Trade Center has to read Wood’s complaint,” Fetzer added. “It is a stunning indictment of the NIST’s failure to come to grips with the problem. In my opinion, these submissions have the potential to shatter the cover-up in one of the greatest murder mysteries in history. We are all indebted to them for doing this.”

James H. Fetzer
Scholars for 9/11 Truth

i disagree with the manner

i disagree with the manner you are taking the error correction requests.

suggest the probable use of

suggest the probable use of high-tech, directed energy weapons

Rather than just file a complaint about the failures of NIST and their final theory, Fetzer/Woods/Reynolds instead retort with an equally as impossible theory of 'directed energy weapons'. Why argue one ridiculous theory by providing an equally as ridiculous theory?

It is obvious that this trio of 'researchers' has moved beyond being a part of this movement as they take no issue in filing such a complaint which espouses a theory which less than 1% of this movement supports, or would like to be associated with.

9/11 Truth and Disinformation: Definitions and Examples
The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers

We all have our own theories, but pushing our weakest arguments front and center instead of just destroying the theory as presented by NIST is begging for failure.

You're right, Jim. I'm sure

You're right, Jim. I'm sure NIST will very take seriously the suggestion that space beams brought down the towers after they were hit (or not hit?) by holographic airplanes.

Jim, you and the rest of your little crew are doing a yeoman's service to whoever is paying you to do this. Your task is clear: muddy the waters with enough B.S. that a real request for correction will receive less attention from the public. The next step of course is for you, Judy and Morgan to take your frivolous correction requests to court and have a federal judge laugh you out of his courtoom (and all the way to the bank), thereby creating damning legal precedent which the real legal effort will have to battle even harder to overcome.

I would just like to be there for the first hearing on your space beam/hologram correction requests, which would probably go something like this:

Judge: Counsel, you think WHAT brought down the World Trade Center Towers?

Leaphart (straightfaced): Your Honor, the Twin Towers were destroyed with a beam weapon fired from outer space after the Towers were hit with holographic airplanes, as we have clearly demonstrated in the requests for correction we filed with NIST.

Judge: Case Dismissed. Counsel is advised to check into a well-staffed mental hospital. Now, get the F$$K out of my courtroom.

Which will then be followed by a well researched and detailed legal opinion issued by said Judge that will serve as persuasive (although hopefully not binding) legal precedent against the real legal effort that comes afterward.

That's pretty much the plan, isn't it Jim? If not, where do I have it wrong?

Show "Reynolds did not talk about "hologram planes"" by Ningen

Actually, I can assure you

Actually, I can assure you that these people are being very careful to in fact create bad law. All of these requests for correction are so legally deficient, they don't even merit dicussion.

I will say it again, the U.S. attorneys will file a motion to dismiss immediately after the lawsuit is filed. The federal judge will read the requests for correction, hold a hearing, and regardless what is in the briefs, he will laugh Fetzer & Co. out of court, then write an opinion that is extremely detrimental to anyone that would legitimately challenge NIST's findings. The U.S. attorneys defending NIST can sleep their way through the briefing, pick their nose during the whole hearing, and still come out victorious.

Fetzer & Co know this, which is exactly why they are doing it.

Show "You don't know that" by Ningen

No planes is so early 2006,

No planes is so early 2006, Ningen. Didn't you get the memo? They've moved onto space beams now, although that's pretty much on the way out too. It'll be interesting to see what they have up their sleeves next. That is, after they're through getting laughed at by a judge. Hopefully the court's opinion will be published in the federal reporter. That would be yet another victory for them.

Show "Will you apply the same critical eye" by Ningen
Show "ALL Jones' filings to date have been a total failure." by Jim Jones

Funny how you are the first

Funny how you are the first person to inject Dr. Jones into this discussion. This has nothing to do with him, but instead the filings by Wood and Reynolds.

I have noticed that both Fetzer and Wood are so obsessed with Steven Jones that they must paint everything as either believing in theory A (Jones) or theory B (Wood). This is a false dichotomy none of us should buy into. We can destroy the official NIST report many ways, none of which require investing in an alternative theory which can in turn be attacked.

Be sure to check out this article on who Jim Jones was:

While some followers obeyed Jones' instructions to commit "revolutionary suicide" by drinking cyanide-laced cherry flavored Flavor Aid (often misconstrued as Kool-aid), others died by forced cyanide injection or by shooting.

No one is drinking your kool-aid here.

Actually it was me

I mentioned the "Jones camp" because George Washington mentioned that a group of scientists would file their own request for correction with NIST. I think this is great.

Professor Jones has proposed an alternative theory to NIST and Wood - thermate and explosives. I think that is fine, but it could be attacked, and if not addressed carefully, that attack could allow NIST to leave the basic questions, which we all agree on, unanswered.

Both Wood and Jones have so much in common about why the NIST theory is wrong. Why do we need to be fighting over this? Even if NIST attacks Wood's theory or Jones' theory of what kind of energy was added, the fact that energy was added remains and must be responded to.

Reading Professor Jones' article in 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, I see that Jones and Wood agree that the WTC towers were turned to powder - Professor Jones uses the phrase "flour-like powder."

Even if there is disagreement as to how fine the powder is, which may be a position Jones developed after the article, both still agree that energy was added and the official story cannot account for the powderization of the buildings. The fineness of the powder may lead to disagreement about what kind of energy was added, but both agree that the powder is too fine to be explained by the official NIST theory.

I think it is a bad move to attack Wood, even if you disagree with her on the type of weapon used. Why can there not be cooperation on common points?

Basically, i agree with you, FalseDichotmy - it's a false dichotomy, and I think both sides should back off on it. Frankly, I think that if there is disinformation going on, it is this very creation of a false dichotomy, and both sides should stop doing it. If you have suspicions, fine, address them more subtly, not in public.

This is so sad, it's pathetic

After teaching logic for 35 years you would expect the man to actually use it.

No... instead he prefers to do something else entirely.

“In this day and age, we all have to become experts on disinformation.”

Jim Fetzer, Disinformation: The Use of False Information

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "Seve B supports "holographuc plane" theory?" by Constitutionalist

My God.

Judy Woods is Insane.

I don't know what to say

The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001

Steve Jones "ambush interview"

On the August 10, 2006 "Non-Random Thoughts" radio program, hosted by Jim Fetzer, Steven Jones was a guest.

At the 45:12 mark in the 2nd hour, Fetzer directs Jones to the 9/11 Eyewitness open letter on the possibility of nukes used to demolish the towers. Shortly thereafter, Fetzer takes a "surprise" call from "Morgan from Arkansas". Surprise! It's Morgan Reynolds!

Wow, what a surprise!

Earlier that day, Wood posted her "Glowing aluminum" article on the website. Reynolds began to refer to the article and challenge some of Jones' findings in his online paper, using Wood's article as his source.

Jones was not made aware that Wood had posted the article earlier that day. He was therefore not allowed to prepare a defense or rebuttal. He was simply challenged live on the air, and had to formulate his responses on the fly. (He actually defends himself fairly well for an "ambush interview".)

This was not a spontaneous challenge of Jones. Reynolds knew that the paper had been put up that morning.

It was a set-up.

I cannot prove that Fetzer was involved in triangulation on this set-up, but the over-reactive nature of Fetzer's "surprise" suggests to me that his response is contrived.

So maybe what we have with the Jenkins interview is a case of "ambush interview" karma.

Anyhow, when tactics get turned on individuals who introduced these methods into public discourse on 9/11 skepticism in the first place, that's just too bad.

Show "Reprehensor is delusional" by Constitutionalist

Ummmmm....wrong. I was

Ummmmm....wrong. I was there -- with no dog in the fight that evening.

Sorry you were lied to. For the last frickin' time:

There was no audience per se. It was in a room next to the room Fetzer had spoken in. There were maybe 10 people at a given time standing near the wall and doorway on the side of the room. Judy was not facing away from us; she was turned so that we could see her face, but not Jenkins'. Nonetheless, there was no audience as you are portraying.

Your time is way off. It was about 10ish, and incidentally she was not too tired to hit a pub with her chums after the interview.

After agreeing to the interview she was escorted to a chair where there were two professional stand cameras with two camera operators. Both Wood and Jenkins clipped on mics and sat down. This was in the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., not mid-pee in the ladies' room of a bar or in the grocery checkout line. She was in D.C. for an interview and "advocacy" junket. You might just as easily characterize a "60 Minutes" interview as an ambush.

Fetzer, Wood, Leaphart, and one groupie who was present have spread this story for damage control purposes, because she comes off as an unfortunate, mentally challenged child.

The remaining people in the room would testify in court to what I wrote. Take what you will from the interview, but stop spreading this lie.

You could keep Steve Jones up for three days and surprise him with a microphone in his shower -- he would sound more credible and less delusional than this. Move on.

You are so wrong, my dear Watson.

[I tried to post this earlier couldn't. I fully agree with LEH]

You have no business presenting these statements as facts “for the record.” Were you there? I was, for both for Fetzer lecture and the Judy Wood interview.

The interview was not conducted at midnight. It took place between 10:30 and 11:00. We had to leave by 11:00, and the guard was anxious to get us out of there. Fetzer finished a little after 10:00 pm. In the adjoining room (which was mostly empty, separated by a moveable wall) two chairs were placed facing each other near the opposite wall, around the midpoint of the room, and two cameras were set up. There were only a few other chairs, so most of the dozen or so people who stayed to watch had to sit on the floor.

I don’t know how many miles Judy Wood drove or hours of sleep she got, but she agreed to do the interview of her own free will. She was fully aware of the lights and cameras and that she would be videotaped. She had plenty of time to visit the restroom before she sat down. If she needed a break during the interview, she could have asked, but she never did. Nor did I hear her ask to face the audience. She was never made to sit with her back to them. As I said, the “audience” consisted of about a dozen people, mostly from the dc911truth group, and they chose to sit on the floor, using the wall as a backrest where they could.

Your other assertions about Jenkins’ misstatements are specious nonsense, to use your phrase. Clearly he misspoke about the height of the towers. It’s to his credit that he didn’t edit the tape to correct it. There was also plenty of data to show tiny amounts (not absence) of iron in the dust samples. Look up the USGS reports. (Please don’t say all government reports can’t be trusted.) I didn’t see much dust going into the upper atmosphere either… only smoke. Finally, he talks about five times the power output (NOT the energy) of the earth. There’s a difference.

Go home and study

"She had no idea that she was about to interviewed on camera but agreed to answer
'a few questions'."

Oh yeah? If you were there, you may have noticed that she walked past 2 cameras set up on tripods and a mixing board, clipped on a microphone, and sat down for an interview which was clearly stated as such before she agreed. I can understand how a child may have been confused by the situation in that the interview was going to be recorded with the cameras that were pointed directly at her, but if you consider her an adult, you may have to rethink your position. Before reevaluating, please consider that adults decide when they need to go to the bathroom, children do not.

I agree with you that she was struggling to string two coherent thoughts together throughout the entire interview. This is true. However, as an adult, she should have been capable of evaluating her own condition. I have observed, though, that most idiots do not possess the self-awareness to recognize themselves as intellectual midgets.

I make the claim that I did not observe any significant amount of dust "shoot up into the upper atmosphere" before or during the collapse. I stand by this statement since I have seen absolutely no evidence to the contrary. In fact, the picture that she "uses to emphasize this point" is grossly misinterpreted by Judy Wood. I explicitly point this out to her in a published paper and in the interview, yet her website still posts this misleading perspective. When one becomes aware that a mistake was made, normal people correct it. Egomaniacs become liers to save their own precious pride, and the mentally deficient remain effectively unconscious.

Yes. I misquoted the width and height of the towers substituting 'meters' for 'feet' ---- I have admittedly grown accustomed to the mks and cgs unit systems in favor of the awkward British unit system as do most scientists world-wide. Two points need to be made. I was trying to help Judy Wood realize the width-to-height ratio of the tower so that she could more effectively judge the building roof height based upon the *relative* width in "her favorite picture". I could not even throw her this life preserver since the flotation device sailed right over her head. Secondly, I could have cut these mistakes out of the interview while performing the video editing , but as an ethical consideration, decided it best to leave my own mistakes in the video (the audio track is completely uncut). I can admit my mistakes since I consider myself a rational individual which, as should be noted, stands in stark contrast to the plethora of uncorrected mistakes which are consistently promulgated by Fetzer and Wood.

I have already explained to you exactly where the data came from regarding the iron in the dust. USGS directly measured (THIS IS CALLED "EVIDENCE") the iron content in the dust from 12 different locations around ground zero. They measure, on average, a 2% iron content by weight which is in excellent agreement with that measured by Dr. Jones from bulk concrete and wallboard samples. Since steel is over 98% iron by weight, and about 80% of the upper 110 floors of the towers were steel by weight, you would expect much more iron in the dust if any appreciable amount of steel was dissociated. It is measurably NOT there. This is not absence of data, this is data supporting absence of iron. See if you can wrap your mind around that statement because I am not going to hold your hand and walk you through the argument again.

You need to grab that old first-year physics book off your shelf and look up the difference between ENERGY and POWER, because you seem to have forgotten the rudimentary definition of the terms. Even though it is explicitly stated within the text of my paper, you seem to have not grasped the simple conceptual difference. It takes over 5 earths output of power to vaporize the steel in one WTC tower. Calling my calculation specious nonsense is specious nonsense. However, unlike you, I will give you a reason. Your critique has no substance, depth of understanding, nor any redeeming qualities whatsoever. Your comments can only be regarded as a waste of storage space. How about a little dialogue, chump? Substance based critique? The answer, I am sure, is that you think the cold numbers which unequivocally prove your belief system flawed have attacked you personally and therefore should be rejected on hollowed emotional grounds. Bravo. Maybe you can lead the charge back into the Dark Ages.

What about the bomb?!? Are you serious? Are you advocating that a nuke went off at ground zero which then vaporized steel which then magically did not appear in the dust? Are you advocating that a small nuke can output the amount of power required to vaporize the steel in the towers in a directed manner without catastrophically damaging the surrounding buildings? No elevated levels of radiation, no radiation sickness, no radiation burns, no neutron induced radiation in surrounding material, no significant elevated levels of tritium? BTW, this is all *data* based and rules out nukes.

Look, Andrew. If you want to show up and play major league baseball, you need to leave little league and remember to bring your baseball mitt. In case the analogy is lost, if you want to engage in a conversation about physics, you need to know what you are talking about.

Go home and study.

Are there parts of Wood's request for correction

that you agree with? If so, could you say what they are? Thank you.

make them choke on their morning coffee

I have only read the above press release, but there are ample topics to address:

1. NIST did not investigate the actual destruction of the World Trade Center Towers: “The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.” This means that the NIST report does not actually include the collapse behavior of the towers after the conditions for their initiation were realized, which NIST refers to as “the probable collapse sequence.”

I think everyone agrees on this point, although the collapse sequence (the point after collapse initiation) should be used as a check on the many over-reaching assumptions used in the NIST computer models. There are many reasons to believe that the NIST model is flawed (for instance, the north tower antenna begins falling first suggesting that the core columns gave way first as opposed to the modeled failures of the exterior columns), and the modeled collapse sequence would be very telling. It would illuminate any shortcomings in the assumptions. This is important to convince the NIST scientists themselves who wrote the report to reconsider their assumptions. Please remember that there are many high caliber scientists at NIST, and most are probably earnest. However, scientists are generally trained to follow the bread-crumbs from the data to the truth.

2. Dr. Wood's RFC contains a stunning array of visual evidence that confirms highly unusual energy effects seen by all as the Twin Towers were almost instantaneously destroyed in less time than it would take a billiard ball to hit the ground if dropped from the height of 110 stories, a result she demonstrates in relation to the law of falling bodies.

Her billiard ball analysis of a progressive collapse does not conserve energy or momentum. It is fundamentally and hopelessly flawed and contains no redeeming analytical value.

None of the effects highlighted on Dr. Wood’s web pages appear to be anomalous. I think I more or less comprehensively address these issues in my paper ( ).

Some details which do not appear in the paper: Check out this video of a car burning in the K-mart parking lot which ignites an adjacent car, and notice the tires and missing door handles on the minivan after the fire is put out ( The burned-out minivan looks exactly like the burned-out vehicles at ground zero which were not crushed. Again, the serial burning of cars parked close together is not anomalous; it happened in the K-Mart parking lot. There are also pictures which appear on her website which have already been proven to be non-anomalous like the Ladder 3 firetruck (check out totovader videos on youtube: & ). In NYC, cars are parked close together which can certainly explain most of the burned-out cars (sublevels and parking lots). Cars on FDR were most likely towed to that location from GZ (See Journal of 9/11 studies, James Gourley's publication).

3. Wood also points out other compelling evidence that NIST ignored, including visual evidence of unusual and unexplained devastation to vehicles parked blocks away from the WTC complex, including some with disintegrated engine blocks but unexploded gas tanks. And she notes the peculiar damage of perpendicular gouges in WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6, as well as other distinctive effects, such as cylindrical holes in these buildings and even in the street, which remain unexplained by NIST to this day. “These outcomes appear to be inexplicable if only conventional explosives, much less fires, were involved,” Fetzer said. “Cars burned, paper did not.”

4. Indeed, Wood goes further and points out that the huge quantity of dust resulting from the visible process of steel disintegration, some of which was captured on film, combined with these other effects suggest the probable use of high-tech, directed energy weapons. Another element of Wood's proof is the almost complete lack of even a rubble pile at the WTC complex. “Where did it go?”, she asks. Whatever the source of energy and heat may have been, it had no effect upon massive quantities of paper floating around the city.

The phrase “huge quantity of dust” means exactly nothing. The quantitative amount of dust together with the average size of the ‘dust’ would yield the amount of energy required to pulverize that amount of concrete and wallboard. It appears that the average size of the particles was quite a bit larger than 10’s of microns in size. For instance, Steven Jones sampled the debris in MacKinley’s apartment near the South tower, and, if memory serves, ~75% of the sample was greater than 1.3mm in size by weight. Multiple pictures show fist-sized chunks of concrete (again, the presence of relatively large pieces, even if only something like .1% the number of the dust particles, would drastically change the energy calculations). This is more like gravel than powder. One would expect more fine powder the further you move away from GZ since the lighter dust would travel greater distances than the heavy gravel. The main point I am making is that Wood (nor I) know the size of the dust, or even if a large percentage of the concrete was indeed turned to powder. As an important caveate, the energy requirements are necessarily not known either. Everyone observed what appeared to be large amounts of powder generated from the collapse of the towers, but there is no obvious way to tell if it is dust or gravel from videos, and there is no straight forward way to know exactly how much of the concrete was ejected as dust (was it 1%, 10%, 50%). Secondly, there is no non-ambiguous visual data that proves steel turned to dust. In fact, the spires from the north tower when viewed from multiple angles appear to merely fall (, a much more plausible explanation than the steel literally vanishing (it did not go up, it did not reside in the dust, therefore it vanished). Fetzer and Wood continue to promote the most ambiguous video footage as opposed to the clearer camera shots of the spires falling even after becoming aware of the other video footage.

I cover the rubble pile in depth in my paper, so I will not address it here. In short, there is no missing debris, and sublevel collapses of the bathtub region can account for the so-called ‘missing debris’.

There is no reason to assume there were massive amounts of heat generated since the energy requirements are impossibly large. There could have been localized hot spots (explosives, thermate, etc.), but no way could there have been any significant amount of steel dissociated. Furthermore, there is virtually no iron (apart from the contribution of the concrete aggregate) in the dust. No significant amount of debris went ‘up’, since by definition, the weight of the stuff which is buoyant would necessarily have to be lighter than the air it displaced. Quite literally, the hot air + particles would need to be lighter than air for it to ‘shoot up’. No visible evidence exists of a significant quantity of dust shooting up into the air before, during, or immediately after the collapse. Furthermore, the air could not have been that hot since no optical distortions were visible (hot air has a lower index of refraction than cooler air). Over the months which followed, steam, organics burning, and relatively small amounts of aerosols (see the Berkeley aerosol study for the chemical analysis) were released and show up as mist on satellite images. We know from the FEMA report appendix C that some very hot exothermic redox reactions were occurring in the rubble piles, and that the quantity of aluminum in the aerosolized form (<2.5 microns) was about 4 times that found in the dust sample (~10 microns) suggesting that aluminum was involved in very hot reactions. Together and taken alone, this seems to suggest an aluminum + oxide reaction, or thermite.

Some paper did burn. There are photographs of charred compressed papers in the GZ WTC tower debris piles. There were also eyewitnesses which report burning paper (see references in my paper). It also acted as a sale in some instances (low weight to surface area) which caused some paper to actually lead the dust/gravel during the collapse. In short, the paper was everywhere and in all conditions. This is NOT anomalous, and certainly can not be used to support space beams.

Damage to adjacent buildings is consistent with that expected from the impulse damage from falling debris from the towers (See, and the amount of debris associated with collapses/partial collapses of WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6 is consistent with the volumetric compression you would expect from a steel framed building collapsing (see my paper).

In short, Wood submitted by-and-large a load of crap which will be circulated to scientists at NIST as a chain e-mail joke. It will serve only to discredit the scientists whom I consider to have legitimate beefs with the NIST report; issues which would make them choke on their morning coffee.

I hope this answers your question to your satisfaction, and thanks for your interest in my opinion....

Thank you

I can't begin to digest this all now, but I appreciate you taking the time to answer.

I see one common point, though - the charred cars. You at page 13 of your paper and Professor Jones think it might have been caused by explosives or thermate, and Dr. Wood thinks it is evidence of directed energy weapons, but you all agree it needs to be explained. This is what I was getting at - are there not questions raised by her request for correction that NIST must explain. They can choke on their morning coffee all they want - they still need to explain. Even if the billiard bill proof is flawed, what it purports to prove is irrefutable - a gravity driven collapse would have taken much longer, assuming it would even continue to the ground.

I agree there are competent, earnest scientists at NIST - I see their report as a dog whistle - screaming "of course this is bullshit!" to those who can hear.

Check out the videos when you get a chance...

They are quite telling. I am not sure how much the burned cars need explaining after learning about the serial-type burning that cars suffer in parking lots. Igniting one car in a parking lot could be explained by various mechanisms (crushing oil and gas tanks via debris, ignition with sparks or burning paper, *any* localized hot spots via whatever mechanisms which may include molten metal, etc...). My personal beleif at this time is many of the cars that burned were probably from such a mechanism. Proof of concept is there, what burned cars look like from regular fires seems to parallel what they look like at GZ for the most part, and close inspection of the actual burned out parking lot picture here ( shows the cars close together burned out, and those parked with some space between the burned-out cars and non-burned cars perhaps supports this argument.

Please clarify

"None of the effects highlighted on Dr. Wood’s web pages appear to be anomalous. "

Do you mean none appear anomalous in light of the official story, or that none support her theory of directed energy weapons? I ask this because, as I discuss below, your discussion of potential energy causing lateral expulsion of material seems to support the official story of a gravity driven collapse..

He explains this in his paper on Directed Energy Weapons

I could go through these points, but they are all in there. He's referring to the "toasted cars" and "dustification" arguments promoted by Woods.

I think it's clear that he does not support the official "gravity driven collapse".

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

A clarification.... hopefully....

None of Wood's 'data' supports directed energy beams since none of the effects appear to be anomalous. Furthermore, even if she proves the effects ARE anomalous, she would still have to prove that the 'data' SUPPORTS the use of directed energy weapons. She has not even cleared the first hurdle.

I absolutely do NOT support the official story. It has been debunked up one side and down another. My posts regarding lateral ejection of debris TOGETHER WITH the rapid fall times implies the necessity of demolition. I am only saying that the lateral ejection of debris does not necessarily mean massive internal chemical explosion caused the lateral ejection of debris.

IF CONSIDERED ALONE, lateral ejection of debris neither supports nor invalidates the official story (if you falsely assume true the official story supports the claim that collapse could even ocurr). As a caveate, lateral ejection also neither supports nor invalidates the use of explosives.

Here, I am ignoring the 'squibs' which ocurred below the zone of destruction. I really don't see how to explain the squibs other than some type of chemical explosion at the moment.

Please let me know if this is still unclear.

My question is about your use of "potential energy"

and is explained better in my comments that I wrote earlier below.

You suggested in your comments below that potential energy could explain the lateral ejection, which is observed to have taken place at the collapse front. Now you say that it can't explain that.

My basic point is that I don't see how you can dismiss as useless every point raised in her request for corrections, just because you think it does not support DEW.

You really haven't explained why her "billiard ball" paper defies the laws of physics - your use of phantom potential energy strikes me as violating those same laws. Lateral ejection and free fall are undisputed, but you seem to be consistently leaving out part three of the equation - there was nothing above the collapse front - so lateral ejection of debris does necessarily imply added energy, whether internal chemical explosion or DEW or new nuke or whatever. You seem to be weakening a case that has already been made, and is made in Wood's paper.

As a layman, I think Wood has made the point just fine.

As for the type of weapon, I don't really care at this point, and I wish both Wood and Jones would have focused their efforts on the absurdity of NIST's "collapse" theory that NIST have pawned off on the American people.

NIST scientists can choke on their coffee all they want - they know they are full of shit and they should be ashamed of themselves. I forgive them because I know how large organizations work, but it is time for them to do the right thing.

Wood and Reynolds have lawfully raised some serious issues, and NIST need to answer.

If you can raise it better, do it. Any affected person can file a request for correction, and they don't need anyone's permission to do it. If you file a request, please consider whether your arguments about potential energy are well considered.

I see you responded to my comment below so I may be overdoing it. Thanks for the discussion


I really don't see how you can support this nonsense. I agree with you that the focus should be on the NIST failings, yet this report is injecting directed energy weapons and the no planes theories. This is exactly what NOT to do, and if I read your posts correctly, you should find this troublesome as well.

Off the top of my head:
Why did NIST use a sagging floor parameter of 46" when actual tests performed on the trusses yeilded only a 3" sag under exceedingly worse conditions than were present on 9/11? Why did the north tower antenna begin falling before the exterior walls gave way? Why did the paint peel tests only show a maximum temperature of about 250C and the half-point strength of steel is 600C, and the modeled temperatures exceded these temperatures? Why did the the towers collapse so fast? What about the molten metal? What about building 7? What about the metalurgical studies of highly oxidized steel beams in the FEMA report appendx C? What happened to the UL tests of the steel? etc. etc.

These are real questions which they have to justify. Again, how can you possibly support this press release? It is a joke...

What "nonsense"?

I agree with you that the focus should be on the NIST failings, yet this report is injecting directed energy weapons and the no planes theories.

Wood's report does not mention no planes theory. That is Reynold's request for correction.

Several weeks ago, I asked "hsgsj" to respond to my ideas about no planes, and got no response. I also asked Steven Jones to respond, after I realized that we was ignoring data in the literature that contradicted his view of the problem as he defined it. Anytime you or anyone else has a reasonable response, I am ready to hear it.

The joke is you, who purports to be a scientist, basing his response on a press release rather than reading the actual request for correction.

I ask again, is Greg Jenkins aware that you are using his name to post on this blog?

high school

You don't think there is enough wrong with what is stated in the press release?

BTW, you need to correct your web site. You directly compare velocity deceleration to kinetic energy losses in multiple places from 2 different studies.

You might need to read one extra chapter out of a high school level physics book to understand, farm boy.

After you make this correction, you will see the difference between the two studies is only about 15%. You are basing your entire website around a descrepency of 15%, and none of the authors report error bars. Care to explain yourself?

You need to do better than that

I used one study for the external columns, and another study for the floors and core columns. The first study criticized the other study's conclusion on the external columns in a way that made sense, so I used the 46% loss in kinetic energy just to get through the external columns. The authors recognized that as conservative but consistent with their purpose of determining how thick the columns would have to be to stop a plane from penetrating.

I then added the figures from the other study for the portions of the building that the first study did not consider. I recognize that they cannot simply be added and acknowledged that it was a rough conclusion. I still think I am right that these models suggest a huge loss of kinetic energy by the time the engines and wings have passed through the external columns and are interacting with the floors, and that this is not consistent with the video.

Please be more specific about what this "discrepancy of 15%" means? How much kinetic energy would the plane lose, and is that consistent with the 0% deceleration found by NIST? Are you saying 15% above Wierzbicki's 25%, or 40%?

Also, are you saying that I am wrong that this data - the Karim / Hoo Fatt article, and NIST's finding of 0% decleration using the Scott Mayers video - should have been acknowledged by Eric Salter and Steven Jones?

I started the insults so I apologize and ask you to stop as well.

Specific issue

Salter's 18% deceleration compared to Hoo Fatt's 46% kinetic energy loss (really much closer to 100% as I show in my paper) gives a drastically larger discrepancy that would not be "consistent with the data within allowable tolerances."

18% deceleration compared to 46% kinetic energy loss....

I will translate for you:
v0=inital velocity, v1= final velocity after impact
(v0-v1)/v0 = .18 --> 1-.18 = v1/v0 = .82
Change in kinetic energy --> (v1/v0)^2 = .82^2 = .67 --> 1-.67= (v0^2-v1^2)/v0^2=33% loss of kinetic energy

Compare with 46% from Hoo Fatt means a 13% descrepancy between Salter's number and Fatt's number. This is a small descrepency, and I would like to know if you can tell me if this is definitively 'within allowable tolerances' since both authors, if memory serves, do not report error bars. From where I am sitting, it seems like it is not that big of a descrepancy especially considering all the assumptions in Fatt's calculations.

Please do not change the topic, and please address this specific point. If you agree and you are honest, you will clarify this point on your website. If you disagree, then you have my attention.

I'm not trying to change the subject

You helped me by explaining your argument better. I will try to be clear below -- points 3 and 5 are the most important.

My conclusion is that a very conservative estimate is 60% loss in kinetic energy = 37% deceleration, which should be compared to videos showing 0-18% deceleration.

1. The 18% deceleration is disputed

Salter says 18% deceleration, but that was disputed by Reynolds and Rajter, based on Rajter's analysis of the same Fairbanks video. That's a minor point - I will assume that the Fairbanks video shows 18% deceleration.

2. NIST said 0% deceleration

NIST says 0% deceleration, based on their analysis of the Scott Myer's video. I don't think that this can simply be ignored, and given NIST's greater capacities, the fact that NIST chose the Myers video as the best one for purposes of analysis, and the dispute between Salter and Rajter over the amount of deceleration shown in the Fairbanks, I think it is fair to say that the NIST showing of 0% deceleration has to be addressed, and may not be inconsistent with the Fairbanks video if Rajter is right. (I think both are faked, so different amounts of deceleration would not be surprising.)

3. You are comparing Salter's apple to Hoo Fatt's orange

Even accepting 18% deceleration = 33% loss of kinetic energy, this cannot be compared to Hoo Fatt's more limited model.

Hoo Fatt modeled penetration of the external columns only - the 46% loss of kinetic energy she found does not include the floors which provide resistance longitudinally along the long plane of the floors (I hope I'm using the right words), and does not include the materials in the open office space and does not include the core columns. Salter's finding of 18% must be seen as including the resistance of all these materials, not just the external columns.

Both Salter and Jones compared this loss of deceleration with Wierzbicki's Internet paper (by way of Grossman's paper citing Wierzbicki) modeling 25% loss of kinetic energy from impact with the external columns, floors, and core columns. Salter and Jones found this be within the margin of error - comparing, I assume, 25% and 33%.

4. Hoo Fatt's model is conservative even for external columns only.

Hoo Fatt assumed that there were no floors backing the columns. She said that if the floors were included, it would increase the bending resistance of the columns. It was not clear to me whether increased bending resistance would increase or decrease the amount of energy needed to shear the columns - would a column that bent absorb more energy and need more energy to sheer, or would a column that bent be easier to sheer. This is obviously shows the limits of my understanding. However, I decided that she meant that the bending resistance created by the backing of the floors would increase the amount of energy lost by the plane in penetrating the columns, because she stated that statement that her assumption of no floors backing the columns would "yield more conservative results." Since the purpose of her paper was to show how thick the columns would have to be stop the plane from penetrating, I read "more conservative results" to mean that with floors backing the columns, they could be thinner and still stop the plane.
This may be a minor point, but even the 46% for external columns only might be too low, and this might address the margin of error issue you raise.

5. The floors would create huge resistance

Wierzbicki found that most of the loss of kinetic energy was from interaction with the floors, which Hoo Fatt did not consider at all. She simply assumed that the fuselage penetrated the columns, and that there was nothing on the other side.

Hoo Fatt found that Wierzbicki found too little loss of kinetic energy from penetration of the external columns. Assuming that she was an expert building on Wierzbicki's prior preliminary analysis, I used her figures for the columns, and also used the remaining parts of Wierzbicki's analysis that she did not cover, to get an estimate of lost kinetic energy from interaction with the floors and core columns.

6. Conclusion

The biggest weakness in my argument, which I cannot address, is how to add the two studies together. If more is lost from the external columns, is less lost from the floors? How much energy is lost in deformation and how much in deceleration? (Even the experts could not really answer this.) If Weirzbicki was wrong about the external columns, is he wrong about the floors and core columns? Where exactly did the plane hit -- fuselage dead on against a floor (it was either dead on or two floors at the top and bottom of the fuselage - Weirzbicki averaged the two estimates)? Did an engine hit directly against a floor? NIST showed the starboard engine driving down into a floor at a slight angle, so it would interact less with the floor longitudinally.

All I am saying is that Hoo Fatt found a loss of 46% just to penetrate the external columns, and the floors and core columns that the plane would hit before it was all the way in would result in even more loss of kinetic energy.

I think 60% loss of kinetic energy is a very conservative estimate. (A guess, really, but is reasonable given the high amounts of resistance by the floors and core columns modeled by Wierzbicki.)

According to your equation, that would mean a deceleration of 37% (square root of .4 = .63).

Even with uncertainties in the models, how can that comport with videos showing 0-18% deceleration?

You seem to agree that the basic question of deceleration vs. estimated kinetic energy loss, which was asked by Salter, Reynolds and Rajter, and Jones, is the right question. This not a question I would have ever thought to ask myself, so if it is the wrong question then I would like to know.

Do I still have your attention?

I think I addressed your criticism, and have not heard a reply for a week. You said if I disagree, I have your attention. I would really like to know whether I am mistaken on this issue, and will correct my website if you show me why I should.

Why don't you ask?

Why did NIST use a sagging floor parameter of 46" when actual tests performed on the trusses yeilded only a 3" sag under exceedingly worse conditions than were present on 9/11?

File a request for correction on this and all the other trivia you cite. (Just my opinion - maybe these are exceedingly important. If so, why are you wasting your time writing here, when you know there is a way to hold NIST accountable for the quality of their information.)

Why did the the towers collapse so fast?

That is part of Wood's request for correction. Which is my point - why trash her for raising that issue? You said earlier she had not cleared the first hurdle of showing an anomaly, yet now you say she should have focused on this anomaly. She did, and you fight it. Why?

What about building 7?

That is Haas' request for correction. Why are you fighting him?

So what is the problem? File your own request for correction, Mr. Physicist.

You are right...

I am obviously wasting my time.

I stand by my point

You give credence to the official story of gravity-driven collapse while focusing on complicated but relatively trivial matters.

news flash

The issues I raise are not complicated. I hate to be the one to give you the news flash.

I explicitly stated that I do not support a purely gravity driven collapse and that demolition was necessarily involved. Furthermore, the point is vividly confirmed by the implicit concepts that I outline. How can you possibly misread so badly?

Trivial matters? You think that provable errors in the NIST report are trivial matters, and that endorsing science-fiction qualifies as legitimate complaints?

I stated that I agree with some of the compaints issued by the press release. The problem is that the release is riddled with so much poison as to render it a joke. The problem with the joke is that I don't find it funny...... bad punch-line.

I share your concern

I may have misread your argument, but I see red when people talk about all the potential energy of the buildings, because they always seem to ignore the flip side of that -- all that mass creates tremendous resistance, particularly since the mass is concentrated on the sturdier lower floors. It seemed to me that you were playing into the NIST gravity-driven collapse fraud, and I reacted strongly. I've been thinking that I should remember you are a scientist and scientists speak very cautiously, and that I read something into your statements that was not there.

The other matters are trivial in comparison to this central point, though reading them again I see they are very good questions. You are right that every provable mistake should be pursued and it might be the little things that make a difference. I was not comparing those matters to the DEW argument, but to the gravity-driven collapse fraud, because I was under the impression you were implicitly supporting the official story.

I never got the idea that you had stated you agree with some of the points in the press release. I share your concern about valid points not being addressed because of invalid points. As I stated earlier, I wish these points had not been made at all and that the gravity-driven collapse fraud had been focused on, at least initially. The stuff you mention such as UL testing could be very useful to show that collapse would not have been initiated, and I support that, but I would also like to see the basic progressive collapse theory - Bazant and Zhou's latest paper - squarely refuted.

I am equally concerned that specific allegations of explosives or incendiaries will be disproven by NIST, leaving the gravity-driven collapse fraud intact. For example, what if NIST is able to produce evidence that thermate residue results from the use of thermate in the cleanup, or some other chemical reaction. Does that leave the central lie intact?

potential energy...

Just because you are not understanding the term 'potential energy' does not mean that I am misusing it, and it certainly does not mean that what I am talking about breaks the laws of physics.

I have clearly explained to you what laws of physics Wood's pathetic billiard ball analysis breaks: the law of conservation of energy AND the law of conservation of momentum.

Keep digging that hole deeper

You explained nothing, and all-caps is bad enough for a schmuck on the Internet, let alone someone who says he is a doctor of physics.

I ask you again - you said "my paper" and linked to Greg Jenkins' paper. Are you Greg Jenkins?

Whoever you are, isn't it time that you explained how Wood's analysis violates the laws of physics? Calling it pathetic and putting a name to the laws doesn't cut it -- how does it violate the laws of conservation of energy and momentum?

wasting my time

I would explain it if I thought there was a chance you would understand.

Here's a thought. Go figure it out yourself, smart guy. Why don't you try it? You seem pretty good at telling others what they should do, so let me return in kind..... All it takes is reading the first couple of chapters out of any high school physics text, or are you not capable of that?

The names of the laws directly answers the question. I am sorry that you don't know how to look up what it means. Like you stated earlier, and I do agree, I am wasting my time writing to you.

No, naming the laws is not enough

You have to show how they are violated, and telling someone to go look it up does not cut it either. If you are right, you should easily be able to explain it in a way that even I can understand.

You are the one that said that her model was a joke, and I simply asked you to explain why. Do it for other people, if not
for me.

I will take your insults as a reaction to my insults and apologize.


I will indulge you. My insults were reactionary as you suggest. I was going to stop writing, but consider the ongoing dialogue as the figurative olive branch.

Take two identical bricks, stick gum between them, and place them on ice at an ice rink. Slide one brick until it collides with the next. Conservation of momentum states that the net momentum (mass times velocity) remains the same before and after the collision. So, in our example and applying the conservation of momentum, the inital brick starts off with an initial velocity of, say, 10 mph. After collision, the two bricks will travel, stuck together, at 5 mph. This is written as:

Before collison momentum = after collision momentum
m x 10 mph = (2 m) 5 mph

In the case of a purely gravity driven collapse as Wood attempted to analyze, she conceptualizes one floor colliding with the next *and then completely stopping*! Then this lower floor starts off with zero velocity, accelerates at 'g' until it collides with the next floor, and then this floor *completely stops*. Repeat 110 times and that yields her collapse time of something like 90 seconds, if memory serves. This analysis does not conserve momentum.

The resistance of the building would concurrenty be figured into the analysis via the conservation of energy (so much energy would be required to break the welds per floor, deform beams, pulverize concrete, heat generations, etc.). Just applying the conservation of momentum correctly without considering building resistance yields longer collapse times than observed (something like a factor of 2). This is important, and should be one of the points addressed by NIST, BTW.

She makes no attempt at conserving either. The whole mess is fundamentally flawed, and really contains no redeeming analytical value.

Thank you

From what I can see, Wood is assuming that all of the momentum from the upper floor is used to pulverize itself and break free the next floor. It seems that this is a thought model she has purposefully put together, so I'm not sure it's fair to say she does not understand the law of conservation of momentum. Isn't she saying she conserves momentum by saying it's all dissipated in pulverization and breaking free the next floor?

Whether this way of looking at the problem has analytical value is beyond my understanding now. You're right - I should review my high school physics. I'm just grokking the problem the best I can and NIST's story doesn't make sense.

I did not say you were misusing the term

I asked where this potential energy came from.

Explain how I did not understand the term "potential energy." Come on - cite what you said, what I said, explain what you meant, and how I misinterpreted you.

You have a PhD in physics, right? I scraped through high school physics. This should be easy.

Tell your superior officer

you failed, at least with me. I'm now more inclined to think there are some secret weapons involved in 9/11.

Maybe I'm wrong

maybe you're not a drone. But wouldn't that be really sad that someone read your stuff and thought that?

[I wish I could erase these two comments, but I said it, so I'll leave it up.]

Wow, 4 pictures.... impressive

Andrew, I am truly proud of you. You are able to click the right mouse buttons and post 4 pictures. Good for you!

Why don't you link to videos from multiple camera angles of the spires falling? Are you afraid most people will think that the spires just fall if they are presented with all available evidence?

Watch 3 different video angles here: I am sure most people would conclude the spires falling, but I leave it up to the viewer unlike Andrew who presents only 4 frames from 1 camera view:

KoKo will soon be taking your messages

I observe the spires falling. USGS unambiguously has data showing that steel did not turn to dust.

You can not refute that the spires fell other than to say "I sees spires turnin' to dust". I am not going to argue what you think you observe in the video.

Now, apart from this little pointless game of I-saw-You-saw, what supporting evidence do you have that the steel was turned to dust?

I have supporting evidence that the steel was not turned to dust. There was no singificant amount of steel in the dust samples.... I also know how much energy it would take to do such a thing (vaporize that amount of steel). To vaporize the steel in less than 1/30 of second (1 video frame) would be necessary since no large bright flashes are observed from superheating the steel, and this is an exceedingly enormous amount of power. No optical distortions exist from superheating the surrounding air. I also know that 'dustification' of steel is a made-up term, and that no way of turning steel into dust without vaporizing is known to exist. I could go on, but what's the point? You can't address half of the points I have already written.

Do you have *any* evidence!?!?! You just watch videos and look at pictures with no critical analysis? I swear, I really am going to have KoKo start responding ---

Another pop-quiz

How much weight of the building is in that dust cloud? Does it represent a significant fraction of the WTC complex by weight?

Before you answer, you may want to consider the concept of bouyancy. That is, for smoke and dust to move upward, the hotter air + particles must be lighter than the surrounding air.

Your homework assignment is to calculate how much weight in tons this is, and then compare that to the weight of the two WTC towers.

I have already done this, so you can't just B.S. your way out of it. I know what the answer is, yet all you can do is post photographs of dust clouds. What did you think, that posting pictures proves something?

BTW, you misquoted what I said. I have alread clarified this issue with you, so now I know you are being intentionally malicious. I really don't think you know how easy it is for me to make you look foolish ---- you almost accomplish it completely on your own leaving me with very little to do.

By all means, post more pictures if that is as deep as your analysis goes. I'll have KoKo respond to it.

Stop playing the victim

Your Quote: I think it would be reasonable to assume that , were the steel to have been evaporated or otherwise 'disappeared', no scientific papers would have been released to show that happening. There is very real presssure coming from above.
One source , however, does talk of steel being evaporated.

The Lioy study can not be used to draw conclusions of the amount of iron content by weight. It is not reported. The speculations you put forth are unsubstantiated and, therefore, are disregarded. You can not speak scientifically and then make blind statments as to what the unreported data might have said, and you can certainly not make unsubstantiated allegations as to the motive of the scientists. It is lunacy. Call Lioy and find out for sure, don't guess.

The Fema Report Appendix C shows a particular steel beam which has been 'exposed to high temperatures' (1000C) for 'prolonged periods of time'. Large amounts of this particular beam are gone ---- oxydized into vapor. Obviously, over the weeks that followed the collapse, something strange was happening in the rubble pile. These temperatures are much too high for organic fires which would be starved of oxygen at the bottom of a rubble pile. The implication is that some sort of exothermic reaction was taking place in the rubble pile. This is key, so please study it carefully, and think about how steel beams buried in rubble piles can maintain such temperatures over long periods of time (weeks and months).

Based upon energy considerations alone, the amount of steel which could possibly be vaporized in the rubble pile could not be a huge percentage of the steel in the building.

A distinction should be drawn between the collapse mechanism and oxydization of steal within the rubble pile. The dust samples by USGS show no amounts of steel in the dust generated by the collapse. Other dust studies show the same thing. The aerosol studies show elevated levels of iron during the months that followed the collapse from the rubble pile. However, the studies do not imply a significant amount of steel by weight from the entire WTC complex was aerosolized.

Conjecture should be avoided, especially if you want to formulate a scientifically based theory, and particularly if you want to refute a scientist's claims. As a case in point, you broached civility when you posted your amateurish drivel here:

Stop playing the victim. My civility has limits.


You post one specifc picture of a specific location. Genius! That proves it! There was not molten metal at ground zero.... or in the entire city of NY.... or on the entire planet! How was all steel smelting haulted during the snapping of that picture? Let's see. All I have to do is show incontravertible evidence that molten metal existed at GZ to prove that molten metal existed at GZ. Where oh where could I possibly find it?


Excellent Post

Your work is very well appreciated.

I'd just like to mention one point that I don't think you mentioned in your paper. As you know, the debris from the towers flew in all directions. How could a space beam (from presumably an external source) account for the basic physics observed? It is utterly absurd to argue that a space beam could cause debris to go in the opposite direction from the force that impacted it.

But don't count on Andrew figuring out your comments. I am convinced that he is not willing to listen to rational arguments. There is a difference between science and religion. Some of these people have a religious belief that space beams were used on 9/11. Physics and common sense be damned.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Good point....

It would be interesting to calculate the amount of energy required to eject the large debris laterally outward during the collapse. There are quite a few complications in this analysis. For instance, I noticed that some of the wall sections (especially the south tower) fell as very large rigid pieces --- this does not really count as energy required to laterally eject since it more or less 'poll vaulted' outward. The second complication is figuring out the mass distribution of the rubble (most of the debris is in the sublevel collapses).

Hypothetically, you expect some amount of lateral ejection from a purely gravitational collapse. I have no idea how far (what kind of debris distribution) you would expect the debris to be spread about. Some peices were certainly ejected incredible distances at large veolicities. Stricly speaking from an energy requirements, the potential energy of the buildings could certainly account for large amounts of lateral ejection, but I would be hard pressed to think of plausible mechanism. Explosives, of course, directly can describe the behaviour. However, I do not see a way to directly rule out the *possibility* that the PE of the building could eject large beams outward. The energy IS there. This is the reason I do not address the issue you raised directly --- I really do not see a way to disprove the lateral ejection from a purely hypothetical gravitational driven collapse scenerio, so I can not rule out space beams + gravitation collapse......

If anyone sees a way to do it, I am all ears....

Regarding the zealots: The main reason I post responses to what I consider to be ridiculous claims is to help clarify the issues for other readers, or at least offer an opposing veiwpoint.

Yes I agree

I agree that gravity could partially account for the falling distribution of debris, and not all of the debris was shot out by the same distance. However, wouldn't it extremely implausible to say that an external energy source could create:

1. Perfectly symmetrical collapse (floor by floor destruction like a detonation wave)
2. An almost perfectly symmetrical and massive debris cloud
3. Ejections of steel beams and debris as far as 400 feet in all directions. These materials struck other buildings, and there is photographic evidence of this.

All of these features can be explained by controlled demolition, and none of them can be explained by an outside source of "exotic weaponry".

If an external energy source was used, it would have to pass through the debris. Consequently it would have to affect the pattern of debris. There is no evidence of this.

I fail to see how any external energy source could account for these observations.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

My 2 cents

The symmetry of the collapse is the most devastating of the points to argue against directed energy weapons. All plausible directed energy weapons would operate in a line-of-sight destruction pattern, so could not explain observation. That is, it can not explain collapse initiation below the roof. Also, if the beam was from the side, it can not explain the symmetrical collapse.

The columns which were launched away from the building I am not so sure about. Here, I am not arguing in favor of DEWs, but arguing from the point of view of a demolition + gravity driven collapse. Again, just considering energy arguments, it is certainly plausible that the PE of the buildings was sufficient to cause large lateral ejection of debris.

I am just thinking that you have massive collisions occuring during the collapse, the top part of the building smashing into the lower part. Both sections have lots of parts. As a simple example, two snowballs colliding in mid-air will eject debris perpendicular to their trajectories merely due to the collisional energies involved. The collapse times of the towers were very fast, but imagine (hypothetically) taking out, say, the middle 1/3rd of the towers via demolition charges. The top part accelerates at free fall speed and then collides with the bottom part of the building. You WILL witness lateral ejection of debris. I don't know how much and what kind of debris field would be expected, but it seems plausible that the collisional energies may be enough to eject debris large distances and still maintain a fast collapse time. In this hypothetical scenerio, it was not the explosives which were used to blast the debris outward. Explosives only caused the top part to accelerate fast enough to completely annhilate the top and bottom part of the structure using gravity. Ejection of debris may just be an artifact. This is not a working theory, only an illustration. There are quite a few geometrical variations on this theme that need to be thought about....

I know that if satan possesed my soul and I were assigned the job of blowing up the towers, I would not use an unnecessarily large amount of explosives. I would use a minimum amount for multiple obvious reasons --- take out some amount of the tower, accelerate the top part sufficiently to ensure the complete destruction of both the top and bottom sections. I certainly would not even consider using the seemingly superflous extra explosives required to directly blow beams 600 feet AND take out all the required beams to cause fast collapse times.

My personal view is that the lateral ejection of debris does not necessarily mean that explosives *directly* caused it. I do beleive that the fast collapse times together with lateral ejections means that demolition of the towers necessarily ocurred.

My 2 cents.....

This is exactly what did NOT happen

The collapse times of the towers were very fast, but imagine (hypothetically) taking out, say, the middle 1/3rd of the towers via demolition charges. The top part accelerates at free fall speed and then collides with the bottom part of the building. You WILL witness lateral ejection of debris.

The lateral ejection took place at the top of the "collapse" front, and the portion of the building above that was already gone or mostly gone.

I'm not arguing for DEW or against explosives. I am arguing against the idea that gravity played a major role in the destruction of the building at the top and going down. I discuss this further in the comment below.

Your last paragraph suggests we agree, as you recognize that lateral expulsion is not consistent with no resistance, but I still don't see how you get the energy for lateral expulsion from the potential energy of the building.

The potential energy was not there

In his article in 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Professor Jones described what is obvious in the videos - the top part of the building disintegrates early on. After that, there is nothing driving the building down, except what Robert Rice has eloquently described as the "Foot of God":

So what is this potential energy you speak of?

Certainly if there was a traditional controlled demolition, with the bottom part of the building taken out to use the potential energy of the entire building, you would expect lateral expulsion of material at the base.

That's not what happened here. The lateral expulsion is taking place at the "collapse" front, after the top of the building is gone. The proof, the way to rule out the possibility of potential energy driving the lateral expulsion of material, is:

(1) there is little or no potential energy above the "collapse" front;

(2) even if there is potential energy, the only way that can be converted to lateral expulsion of material is if that material is meeting great resistance, which would mean a slowing of the "collapse."

Basically, you would have to have the portion of the building at and below the collapse front providing as much resistance as the ground in a traditional controlled demolition, in which case the portion of the building at and below the collapse front does not collapse, but destroys the portion of the building above.

Again, the portion of the building above the collapse front was gone, early on. You can't have pulverization and lateral expulsion of material at the same time as no resistance, yet NIST claims the building below offered no resistance.

That's your proof, in prose. I am surprised that you are questioning this fact which is a consensus in the "movement." I would sooner believe an energy requirement of 5 times global output than believe what you just said.

The issue as I currently see it...

These are good points you raise, and I thank you for the discussion.

I should probably review the videos further to analyze the geometry of the collapse in more detail and refresh my memory. One thing you should notice, though, in both collapses, is that the radius of the lateral debris field increases as the collapse front moves down. I don't think it is caused just from the constant lateral velocity of the ejected debris from the upper floors. I recall observing larger and larger lateral ejection velocities as the buildings neared the ground.

This can mean either the ejection velocities increase due to larger explosions near the bottom or larger collisional energies nearer the ground than during the initial stages of collapse.

Also, please bare in mind that most of the debris from the towers came straight down. The north tower, for example, was about (including the 7 stories of sublevel collapses) a 9 story tall rubble pile which accounts for ~65% of the building mass ON ITS FOOTPRINT.

Now, I was just using the geometry of the middle third of the building being demolitioned as a simple example to illustrate a point. I am definitely not saying that this geometry fits observation. In fact, it obviously does not. My previous argument was only to point out that collisonal energies can cause lateral ejection, AND that there exists ways to cause the towers to fall which would be fast and concurrently cause quite alot of lateral ejection of debris.

I am aware that most people believe the lateral ejections to be directly caused by massive explosions. However, this is more of an assumption than anything which has been proved. At least I have not seen it proved to my satisfaction by anyone, and I am unable to definitively prove it to myself. Furthermore, I am haunted by the fact that it seems really an absurd way to bring down the towers. Why blow them up with such a massive amount of explosives when the potential energy of the buildings can be used? Why the extra risk (planting much more explosives than necessary, and leaving much more explosive residues everywhere)? Normal demolitions use a minimal amount of explosives and buildings collide with the ground. I am thinking in the case of the WTC towers, instead of the normal collisions with the ground, you have sections of building collide with other sections of building instead of the ground.

There are alot of permutable ways to do this, and I don't know of which ways may best fit observation. Again, my original point was only to illustrate a simple point.

Your questions are good questions, but I have not yet thought that much about the actual 'details', which is actually where all the work lingers so can not really be labeled 'details'. Your questions are pushing me in a direction that I really do not want to write about until I have thought more about it.

I will write something if anything interesting pans out from this line of thinking. However, please let me know of any solid proof that the lateral ejections are caused by chemical explosives. You may know something that I don't.

Addressing your points above:
Yes, lateral expulsion via collision would slow the collapse speed. Therefore, the timing of demolition would necessarily have to correlate with the observed collapse time. The buildings DID fall slower than freefall, so collisions DID ocurr. Could this energy be enough to cause the observed lateral ejections? I honestly have no idea without going through the numbers ---- I don't see the answer as being self-evident or obvious ----

Show "I thought I was talking to Dr. Greg Jenkins" by Ningen

If the force is from directly above . . .

is that not the same direction as a gravity driven collapse? In other words, if the potential energy of the building falling straight down can expel material to the side, why could not a force from above driving down on the lower portion expel material to the side?

I'm not arguing for DEW, just responding to your argument.

Fetzer, your "space-beams" theory is pure disinformation that

has discredited the 9/11 truth movement!

Reynold's theory that the that "real jetliners would have been dramatically slowed by the impact, which implies that the NIST report is not only factually wrong but also physically impossible in violating physical laws" is also blatant disinformation!

Real aircraft did strike the towers, not holograms or cartoon images! The large aircraft flying at 500 mph had enough energy to burst through the towers & penetrate well inside before slowing took place. Nor can you get precise timing of jets slamming through buildings at near ballistic speeds using ordinary video.

Show "You are begging the question" by Ningen

Those jets pierced through the outer columns like a bullet!

The massive core columns were in the center of the towers, an entirely different matter.

How far in?

About half the length of the plane in the case of the South Tower.

And you are again talking in tautologies.

And they were not like bullets or projectiles:

No doubt.

I just watched them shoot a piano wire through a tree on Mythbusters. It was nearly impossible to tell if it slowed down or not.

Stick to the strongest evidence, not that you will. But the movement has requested it - yet you continue to do so. Hmmm.

Do you have a link to the video?

That show was on in September 2006 and I couldn't find it online. Perhaps you saw a rerun.

My guess is that the piano wire acted as a rigid projectile and the tree was relatively non-rigid - that's different. Since the wire is said to have pierced the palm tree then a piece of plywood, it probably did not slow down too much until it hit the concrete wall beyond the plywood. Dr. Reynolds' question is how the plane suddenly decelerates when it is completely inside, yet did not slow at all going in.

Impossible crash physics

may not be the strongest argument in terms of public acceptance, but I do not think it is inherently implausible and think the reaction to it here is way overblown. In terms of physics, I think the questions raised by Morgan Reynolds are obviously valid and I want NIST to answer them.

Whatever the truth movement PR men say about what the public would say if the issue was fairly presented, it is crucial to get to the bottom of this because Arabs flying planes into towers is a lie that has resulted in the deaths of upwards to a million people.

Hey Fetzer

your entry is currently rated at 1.6 out of 10. I would give you a ZERO if I could.

Don't you get the message?

I think it's clear that Jim Fetzer

Is not concerned about getting the "message"

He's focused on destroying the message: 9/11 Truth

Here . . .

I guess it's time for this again . . .

Show "Do you invest in ad hominem attacks to distract folks" by Jim Jones

Do you know who Jim Jones

Do you know who Jim Jones was? It isn't exactly the best nickname to use.
James Warren "Jim" Jones (May 13, 1931 – November 18, 1978) was the American founder of the Peoples Temple group, which became synonymous with group suicide after the November 18, 1978 mass suicide by poison in their isolated agricultural intentional community called Jonestown, located in the country of Guyana. Jones was found dead from a gunshot wound to the head among the 913 corpses there.

Is this an allusion to the kool-aid you are drinking?

Could be something else

Could be something else entirely...

Excerpt from "The Secret Life of Jim Jones: A Parapolitical Fugue" by Jim Hougan:

JONES: "I know... (Jones begins to hum, or keen.) "I tried so very very hard... Get Dwyer out of here before something happens to him."

UNMAN: "Jjara?"

JONES: "I'm not talking about Jjara, I said Dwyer."

The Last Tape is anything but indistinct, and there would seem to be only one way of making sense out of it: that is to say, it means what it says. Jones is giving orders to his followers to protect "Dwyer" by taking him to East House (a part of the Jonestown encampment from which attorneys Charles Garry and Mark Lane had already escaped). There is no other "Dwyer" associated with the Peoples Temple, so it would seem fair to conclude that it was Richard Dwyer whom Jones intended to protect.

Why Jones should have wanted to protect a CIA agent is an interesting and important question. So, too, it seems important to ask whether or not Dwyer's appointment to the Embassy post in Guyana was in any way connected to the presence of the Peoples Temple in that country. And, also, whether it was a coincidence that Congressman Ryan's tour-guide at Jonestown was, secretly, the CIA's Chief of Station in the country?

John Judge has also done some excellent work on the alleged "mass suicide" at Jonestown. It is clear that Jones' "communist" politics were a fraud (at the same time he declared himself the reincarnation of Karl Marx, he was raising money for Richard Nixon).

The "White Night" mass-suicide drills began before the temple even moved to Guyana, indicating that the "mass suicide" was NOT in response to pressure by the US government but rather a long-prepared strategy.

Jones was an obvious racist whose entire inner circle was white (while the vast majority of temple members were black). He was a childhood friend of superspook and torture expert Dan Mitrione (whose exploits were immortalized in Constantin Costa-Gavras' superb film "State of Siege".

The site itself was a former CIA training camp for Honduran guerrillsa.

The 'patients" at Jonestown were subjected to non-stop psycho-sexual torture and were forced to ingest mass quantities of drugs (the results of which were meticulously recorded in mammoth log books).

The man identified as the dead Jim Jones is missing tattoos.

The list goes on and on. Very interesting and very disturbing episode in the history of MKULTRA.

Jonestown is about as far down the rabbit hole as I'd prefer to venture, thank you very much.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

What is DBLS?

I really have no clue what you are talking about...

I have a lot more patience for honest people who are frustrated with dishonest people (the people who engage in the most ad-hominems/disinformation). I'll admit that. But I don't condone name-calling. Although I don't think you are a bad person, I do believe that you are misguided as well as a bit disingenuous in your posts.

I tend to agree with Steven Jones on this issue

We don't have to engage in the same tactics that Wood and Reynolds use so frequently.

Come on, Arabesque

How is that a response to what Andrew said? I agreed with you that Reynolds should not have called Jones retarded, etc., and I think Reynolds said maybe he shouldn't have said that, but that is old. The only thing that is frequent is you talking about what they said months ago, which was not that big a deal.

Are you seriously comparing that to the crap Victronix posted here?


You really have to start paying more attention.

Wood and Reynolds have done exactly the same thing. I don't condone this behavior on any side of the fence.

One more thing

Has anyone noticed that Fetzer is listed very prominently on patriotsquestion911? But have you also noticed that patriotsquestion is listed very high on the links list on the left panel of 911blogger ?

Go take a look at that site now, and look to see just how prominently he is featured --

It's as though Steve Jones is nobody compared to Fetzer, and the only one above Fetzer is Griffin.

Out of 120 professors, Fetzer is #2?????

Does Alan Miller know anything at all about Fetzer???

Will somebody please contact Alan Miller if you haven't already and speak out against this promotion of Fetzer on there? Send him this latest scam to NIST. Newbies that come upon that site will think Fetzer is God or something the way he's shown.

But another question I have to ask is why -- given that patriotsquestion mixes in the worst of the worst, Wood, Reynolds, Fetzer and Shayler with legitimate people -- does 911blogger promote that site?

From what I can see, no one on here is falling for the hoaxes. So why does blogger promote a site that not innocently but openly refuses to take the hoax names off their list? Many people have asked Alan Miller to remove them, and he refuses.

What will it take?

That's the problem with the attitude of "it's all good." Then good people like Rosie end up thinking Fetzer is okay and link to him.

Some of it really isn't good, but instead undermines all of our best efforts by mixing in NONSENSE with people working extremely hard to present our best evidence.

Rosie is sticking her neck out and for that she gets undermined by hoaxes, hoaxes that continue to exist because of sites like patriotsquestion which trick newbies.

Expect to continue to see Fetzer on here and having to vote him down as long as he is being kept alive by sites like patriotsquestion and those who promote that site. The supposed benefits are never worth it when this level of overt hoax promotion is happening.

LOL @ 18 "one" votes. The

LOL @ 18 "one" votes. The jig's up Jimbo. Time to find another line of work. You're an embarassment to COINTELPRO agents everywhere.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

The professors are categorized

Griffin and Jones are in the category:


Jones is in the category:


To put Jones above Fetzer would move the category and put Jones above Griffin. But, that might put someone else above your hysterics. I can see that Alan Miller has a real quandry. But, I fail to see how anyone, newbie or notnewbie (is that the question?), could mistake Fetzer for God. Jabba the Hut, maybe.

There appears to be no logical order to the categories. You should be very happy to know that Jones is seven places above Judy Wood in their respective category.

Do you see any logical order to the 9/11 Inquiry Sites here? I don't.

patriotsquestion911 has a new section called:

Entertainment and Media Professionals Question the 9/11 Commission Report

You will find Rosie there. But wait. Call the police. Contact Alan Miller. Cover the eyes of innocent newbies. Woody Harrelson is above Rosie. How can Miller promote Woody above Rosie?

The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001

I know where the missing iron went!!!!

It formed a dense cluster inside your head, super-compressed by the pre-existing blackhole between your ears.

Let me get this straight. You can't tell if this stripe is superficial or substantial damage or merely carbon build-up from fires, nor can you tell what caused it, therefore it was space beams? Am I understanding you?

Do you ever read what you write, or do you just wait for the rebuttals to bounce off that dense iron core of yours?


I don't know how many times I've seen this guy trying to argue that because Fox news doesn't discuss the "space beam" theory, it's evidence that they were used on 9/11.

Some things are even too ridiculous for Fox News.

So what's the problem?

Some things are even too ridiculous for Fox News.

I thought the problem was how the media would react.

I though that was what this entire thread was about.

So it's not a problem, right?

I'm glad we agree that FOX does not want to talk about advanced weapons.

ad hominem

Andrew, sorry for the ad hominem. I was feeling a bit punchy earlier this evening.

Regarding the military-industrial complex:
These guys are the most paranoid people on earth. The only motive which seems to trump their paranoia is greed. Of course the newer technologies are burried--- it means less competition, and no-bid contracts to the only company that can secretly produce the new technology. However, please keep in mind that most of the research and development labs which opperate in 'secret' (and this basically means adding major stacks of beauracracy on top of daily work loads) are hopelessly inefficent. For instance, did you know during the first gulf war that the patriot missiles could not be left on for longer than 48 hours because of errors in the dinosaur computers and buggy software typical of government labs which rendered the targeting system useless? The Isrealis were actually told to cycle the power every 48 hours, otherwise they could not hit the broad side of a barn. Of course, they didn't do it (who wants to be responsible for flipping off the missile defense system at a time when an incoming scud might appear), and most of the casualties from scud missile attacks were from patriot missiles raining blindly down from the sky on civilians as the modified scuds spontaneously desintegrated in flight. Bush Sr. publicly reported the huge success of the patriot missile system, and money flowed like honey.

Fundamental science progresses at a fast clip since it is an open dialogue --- all findings are published, and the publications result in more funding. The game is simple, competative, and relatively efficient.

So the fundamental science is public domain. Most of the good scientists stay the hell away from government labs since they are known to be..... how do I put this.... retrograde. Also, why would companies invest in fundamental research when the tax payer can pay for it through NSF grants, state universities, and DoD-type sub-contracts? This is the reason that Bell labs, IBM, and AT&T halted their fundamental research programs! What is kept 'secret' are some of the technologies developed, and at least 99% of the time it is purely for greedy reasons and really has nothing to do with national security..... just security of lucrative contracts.

It reminds me of a british website I ran across a few years back. A man was building a cruise missile in his garage using toy store parts, a couple GPS chips, and a custom designed rocket engine (he was a rocket engine engineer by trade) for less than $10,000 dollars. Of course, MI5 shut him down stating that he was aiding terrorists. But the point is that it is easy to foil all of these tech toys that the military industrial arms complex is building. The MIRACL laser in White Sands Missile range is only capable of shooting down Katyusha rockets, not even ICBM's. Katyusha rockets are really just blind flying tin-cans, and the most powerful laser in the western hemisphere is barely capable of coping with it. Using DEW's as a cost-effective way to shoot down missiles is a sick joke. I can think of many cheap ways to render a DEW missile deffense system ineffective overnight. Of course, the point is to take our money and run, to hell with national security. It is just a pretense.

Some technology on the battlefield is impressive. But as I am sure you are well aware, the way to overcome this little disadvantage is to not have a battle field. Force armies to come to your door. Just check out the Iraqi tactics..... the technology, in the final equation, is nothing.

I don't really expect to alleve your apprehensions regarding the 'unknown' technologies that exist, but please consider that the fundamental reason it exists is not for effect, but for the love of burning large amounts of money.

Thank you, Dr. Jenkins.

That was most edifying.

Carbon buildup seems unlikely

It's perfectly symmetrical. Assuming it is real, I can't see it being caused by carbon, or debris damage for that matter. If it is real, it is very strange.

Keep talking

I think it is reasonable to wonder what happened, and there is no way for us to know what kind of weapons exist. I don't understand Tesla's work. I assume that there are some incredible technologies that are classified, but may assume things that scientists know just can't be done. On the other hand, there could be weapons that defy or transcend the laws of physics as currently known to the unclassified scientific community. Hsgtj describes a completely different
situation above - I have no experience in these matters.

I am skeptical of explosives and thermate because it seems very hard to place them in the amounts necessary, but I could be wrong and that alone should not rule them out because we don't know what technologies exist or how they would have to be placed, and what access people had to the building over the years.

Some kind of new generation nuclear device seems to match what we saw, purely in terms of the level of destruction and the rough resemblance to a nuclear explosion, but that is just my layman's view, and it seems there is no good evidence of residual radiation and damage to humans in the area.

This seems to be a good explanation of the difference between energy and power:

I think what he is saying is that the vaporization of steel would require the 5 x the current power generation capacity of all power plants on earth.

I can't complain about how he treated me because I started it with him, but I didn't like how he treated you, and am glad he apologized. I agree that those with special training should be able to explain their ideas in lay terms without condescension.

I wish we could focus on the impossibility of the official story of gravity-driven collapse, and it would be bad if talk of DEW weapons allowed NIST to avoid that issue. I'm just not convinced it does allow that, and think there are parts of Wood's request for correction that we should all be able to agree on.

I agree that if that mark on Building 7 picture is real, none of the explanations he offered seem to fit.

analogy with music

Jazz musicians complain all the time about the audience not understanding the difference between 'good' music and 'bad' music. If someone goes up to the bandstand and requests 'the electric slide' to a group of jazz guys, you will see (as you probably already know) nothing but eye-rolls.

My condescension stems from the fact that I do not know how to be any more clear in my statements. When my statements are misread and then the misrepresentation thrown in my face, I get annoyed. I do not get annoyed if questions are posed which probe the conceptual meaning of what it is that I wrote. There is one exception, though: I can not, in a blog forum, fill in very large gaps (not necessarily in this particular case but generally) in basic stuff. There has to be some level of common understanding of the language in order to write concisely. Christ, my posts are lengthy enough already, no?

It is the same with music in some regards. Try to tell a laymen to play a "2-feel" or "7/4", or to hammer out a dominant chord with a sharp 9 with the major third on the bottom. Try to write this out in words where a layman can understand when they have no clue what a time signiture is or know the notes of a scale. It becomes *very* tedious. It may be quicker to defer someone to a particular mp3 clip to illustrate the point, or defer someone to go and learn something about basic chord structures before delving into jazz chord progressions.

Likewise, it may be quicker to refer someone to review specific basic physical concepts elsewhere.

small correction

The power requirements:
The power I quote is not just electrical power, rather the total power harnessed by human beings on the globe including wind power, solar power, nuclear, all bio-mass burning which includes carbon combustion and camp fires in Zimbabwe, etc... Now, with no loss (perfectly coupling energy into the steel beams of the tower), the required power to dissociate the steel in one WTC tower is over 5 times this power. With conservative estimates of losses, the number is well over a thousand times this amount of power. The numbers are screaming that it is impossible to disintegrate the steel in a WTC tower over ~10 seconds.

Building 7:
I did not state that I knew the cause of the black stripe on WTC7. My point seemed to have been missed. The point is that it is extremely ambiguous what the stripe is or what kind of possible damage it represents, so surmising it's cause is tenious at best.

Sure, it's tenuous

particularly since we don't know if the photo is authentic. I was just saying that if it is real, debris damage or carbon from fire does not seem likely as causes.

Sorry about the misstatement of power - it's in your paper.

A few questions about your paper

I know that you think these questions are moot because little iron was found in the dust, but I wonder about these points:

1. Is it possible energy was applied over a longer period than 10 seconds, even over minutes or tens of minutes?
That would reduce the power requirement, right?

2. How much energy would be required for electromagnetic resonance to disassociate steel along the grand boundaries, as you describe on page 6 of your paper? How about sonic waves?

3. Is there a way to make resonance work to disassociate steel with multiple grain sizes and boundaries? Do you need multiple frequencies, or do they have to all be the same?

I hope these questions make sense - they are just based on my reading of your paper. Thank you.

Good questions, and they make sense

It is possible that the same amount of energy required could be applied over a substantially longer time period to lower the power requirements. However, you must consider a few things. The first is that 75% of the net energy required to vaporize steel is from the 'latent heat of vaporization' term. That is, the energy required to dissociate steel once it is already melted and at the boiling point. The reason this is the case is that Iron has a very high electron affinity (the electrons want to remain with the iron). The covalent bonds (electrons are shared between adjacent atoms thus bonding the iron together into a lattice) are quite strong. So, once the iron is glowing white hot and boiling, you need to apply 75% of the net energy that I quote in my paper which would be required to vaporize the steel. Since no massively large amount of liquid boiling iron was observed before or during the collapse, this means that this would necessarily have to be applied very quickly to hope to match observation (no observed bright glowing or boiling steel/iron). So, there is really no way that the energy could be applied over a longer period of time and even hope to match observation.

After the collapse, a beam weapon applied to the rubble pile seems like a crazy thing to do. If it were applied, you would expect the surface of the pile to be heated before the interior of the pile thus melting or vaporizing the surface debris. This does not match observation either.

2. and 3.:
I was really hoping someone would ask this question at some point. Many thanks for bringing it up.

Let me address point #3 first. No, there is no real way to apply the concept of resonance to dissociate steel along grain boundaries when the grains are irregularly spaced, and have irregular sizes (masses), and the intergranular bonds have a wide variance compared to the intragranular bonds but whose average magnitude is about the same. Let me illustrate this point with a simple mechanical analogy. Replace each intergranular bond with a springs of differing stiffnesses, and each grain with a ball (mass). Make a huge 3-d structure with a bunch of these springs of different stiffnesses and balls of widely varying masses (figure something like the smallest ball is about 1000 times smaller than the largest ball). The numbers of springs you need would be something much greater than avagadros number (>>10^24), and the number of balls would be [(10^-6)/(10^-9)]^3 (ratio of grain radius to iron atom radius cubed) less than the number of springs, or about 10^9 times smaller. The system would have no resonant frequency. Each spring has it's own (different) resonant frequency, but you could not drive the system at any particular frequency to break it apart along grains. This precludes any type of mechanical resonance like sonic waves.

It also precludes breaking the iron lattice apart along grain boundaries using optical resonance since the spring stiffnesses vary too much from grain to grain. That is, the spring stiffness (bonding strength) varies quite alot. The frequency you need to break the bond is found directly from the bonding strength, f=E/h, where h is a constant called Plank's constant, E is the bonding energy, and f is the frequency needed to break the bond. So if the spring stiffnesses vary, so does the optical frequency you need. Furthermore, the frequencies you need are going to be quite high since the bonding strengths are high (something like 10's of eV or so, or somewhere close to visible light). Visible light would not penetrate the steel in a 3-d lattice in order to 'carve out' the 3-d grain.

Also, vaporizing material via optical resonances requires the same minimum energy as vaporizing material by heating it. The reason the energies are the same is that both processes just break the bonding energy of the lattice. For steel, this minimum amount of energy is pragmatically an impossibly large amount.

Hypothetically, if you had a 3-d lattice where the grains repeated themselves regularly, then the system would have mechanical resonances. However, this is just not the case with steel. Take a look at the pictures in the FEMA report appendix C to see electron microscope pics of the grains in actual steel from GZ.

There are large resonances associated with steel from it's finite size. That is, a freely suspended steel beam has boundary conditions where the ends of the beam are free to move, therefore there are sonic resonances. But the wavelengths associated with these types of resonances are necessarily MUCH larger than the size of the grains. You may be able to induce macroscopic fractures in the beam in the same way as if you physically bent the beam beyond it's capacity, but there is no way to dissociate the steel into dust.

For instance, you have seen the Memorex commercial where sonic waves are used to shatter a wine glass. Glass is an amorphous solid which means the atoms which make up the glass do not form a regular repeating 3-d lattice. However, glass can support macroscopic resonances based upon it's macroscopic shape. In this case, the rim of the glass can support macroscopic standing waves. There is a macroscopic resonance where if enough energy is pumped into the glass, the movement of the glass will eventually over stress the glass. This is equivalent to, say, putting the glass in a vice. If you over stress glass, it shatters.

Steel would not shatter like glass. It is just the nature of the material --- it is not nearly as brittle. You could possibly fracture (crack) the steel, but again the phenomena would necessarily have to be much larger than the size of the grains.

I know the topic is a bit heavy. But the physics of solids is necessarily complicated --- I hope that I have no made the issues impenetrable.....

"it seems very hard to place them in the amounts..."

Ace Elevator Co. was overhauling the elevators in both towers prior to 9/11, giving access to the cores. This does not mean that they had anything to do with the placing of thermite or explosives, but they certainly were exactly where one would want to be to do so. Not one of their workers (±80) who were in the buildings that day went down with the ship. Perhaps chance, perhaps worth looking into. They filed for bankruptcy after 9/11.

A truly brilliant disinfo tactic

I could not be more disgusted.

Dr. Fetzer and company are attempting to vault themselves back into the media spotlight by being the first ones to officially challenge the NIST report.

Of course they have no valid science to back their claims up. They don't need any and that's not the point, anyway. The point of this tactic is not to score a legal victory, but an attempt to enhance their credibility with the msm.

They can accurately claim to be the first ones to legally challenge the NIST report and thus try to cast themselves as the vanguard of the 9/11 Truth scholars as well as the entire movement. The media can happily introduce them as the leaders and cite these legal maneuvers as additional bona fides. With this platform they can then present their absurd (insane, even) claims and preempt (in the msm) any valid scientific claims that may follow.

This is all about destroying the credibility of the movement in the eyes of the 65% who have yet to realize the truth about 9/11, slow the growth of the movement and keep us from reaching critical mass at the rate we are now going.

Just mix this nonsense with frequent doses of "anti-Semitism" and "Holocaust denial" and you have a guaranteed train wreck for the movement. They're taking their gloves off and getting very serious about the fight.

With most people you won't get a second chance to make a first impression.


We need to make sure that a situation like this does not occur again.

Let's see how this gets played out in the media and just keep hammering away for the truth, brothers and sisters.

Chins Up!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

I agree - let's see how this plays out

I doubt the media will report this at all.

The media won't report the filings per se,

but will use them to bolster the credibility of Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Wood et al when they want to next parade them in the msm to discredit the movement and especially the real science of true scholars.

This is nothing that can't be overcome, but is just an additional hurdle to slow the movement down, as I stated above.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

What does NIST have to do with DEW?

And for the record I think you don't actually believe in DEW. You certainly don't support your beliefs with rational arguments.

Why is it necessary to discuss this topic further when Mr Jenkins has forcefully and completely debunked the DEW hypothesis?

NIST report was written by DEW manufacturers

Dr. Wood has filed an addendum to her RFC asking for full disclosure of the extent of Applied Research Associates' involvemnet in the energy-weapon business.

ARA is a leading manufacturuer of these weapons, and also a leading contractor for providing "analysis" for the NIST report.

Hope this helps.

invisible wingless ducks

Andrew, I appreciate your posts as well as Ningen's posts. I usually do not spend much time blogging, but have been enjoying the exchange.

Regarding Hoffman:
He explicitly and directly describes Fetzer as disinfo here:

Hoffman directly and explicitly rejects specific DEWs on his website, and does not mention any other DEWs:

If someone promoted the idea that huge invisible falling wingless ducks drove the collapse of the towers, you could apply much of the same reasoning as you outline. Namely, shunning of the idea by the 9/11 community represents evidence that there must be something to it, and since the Pentagon clearly does not want to speak about their secret cloaking devices represents evidence that they used the cloak on wingless ducks.

Only time will tell if the Pentagon will send their teams to vote this particular post up since I happened to mention an impossible scenerio involving a secret cloaking device.

Personally I would not care if a few people believed in the above 'hypothesis', but if it began receiving traction and media attention, I would become aggitated. In fact, I may become so annoyed as to write a paper which thoroughly discredits the concept based upon physical arguments. This act should not be mistaken as evidence that the theory is true based upon the existence of the attack. Rather, it would represent one annoyed individual who could no longer tolerate bunk being discussed in favor of more credible concepts in the national media.

Fortunately, I think the majority of people in the movement are already awake and cognizant of the dangers of poison pills. I certainly can not speak for everyone, but it seems that very few people want to stiffle free speech or shut-down anyone's personal research/inquiry into the collapse of the towers. However, wouldn't you think it harmful to the movement if the above wingless duck hypothesis was in a press release and mailed to NIST? WTF do you think the NIST scientists would do when they read it? How do you think the general public would react if they heard it spewed forth on national radio or TV? How do you think it would affect perception of the 9/11 truth movement in general? Wouldn't it at least piss you off a little?

I agree completely

Excellent points as usual.

The question is, should the 9/11 truth movement be promoting non-scientific theories.

What is a non-scientific theory? It is a theory that can not be tested with the available evidence. It is speculation that can’t be proved OR disproved.

I could argue that GOD destroyed the Twin Towers with his foot. You could never prove me wrong on this. It is the same with the invisible flying ducks hypothesis. These do not qualify as a scientific hypothesis.

The DEW theory is also not a scientific hypothesis because there is no way to test it. There is no test to prove or disprove that “magical dustification” is even remotely plausible. As Dr. Jenkins has shown, it borders on an insane amount of energy required. If we had the capability to generate this much energy what motive would there be for the 9/11 attacks? The 9/11 attacks were committed in order to get oil. Why would we need oil if we had this miraculous technology? We could solve global warming in a second.

Andrew, I have asked you before what evidence would convince you that DEW was not used. You choose to ignore my question. Personally I find this very revealing. I might as well try to convince a priest that God does not exist.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."


"In turn I would politely ask you why you have chosen to devote so much time yourself to this issue if it is, as you claim, utterly worthless?"

I don’t claim it is worthless. I have never used that word—I claim that there is no evidence to support it; only speculation. I object to speculation without confirmation with testing and/or credible evidence.

I devote my time to this because it is destructive to the 9/11 truth movement and resulted in the complete and utter "controlled demolition" of scholars for 9/11 Truth. Any attempts at painting this as a 50/50 split are utterly absurd. I refused to join this group due to the content of the website. At best it is a 95/5 spilt in favor of the new scholars group which I have joined.

For me to believe that DEW were used the following would need to happen.

  1. There must be demonstrable tests to prove that DEW is feasible. Not abstract speculation and “alternative physics”. If this objective is not met, I will not consider the theory, and nor should anyone else who values the highest standards of proof for getting another 9/11 investigation.
  2. There must be physical evidence of residue that can not be explained by explosives. A “fingerprint” so to speak. “Dustification” in itself is not evidence as it can be explained by explosives. There must be some chemical fingerprint (i.e. like a thermite reaction). It is not enough to speculate that DEW caused “dustification”.
  3. There must be credible evidence (i.e. not disinformation/misinformation as promoted by Judy Wood and Fetzer) to support the hypothesis. This means no photos taken out of context, no misrepresentations of evidence and news reports. No ignoring of contrary evidence. See Journal of 9/11 studies for discussion of this.
  4. No ignoring the 11 features of demolition shown to be present. They all must be explained. No ignoring the evidence of thermate as seen in the FEMA report and as confirmed by Steven Jones. No ignoring of the molten metal for weeks after 9/11 and the chemical analysis of dust samples. All of the evidence used to support DEW has been debunked in the Journal of 9/11 studies. It therefore does not qualify as evidence. Misleading arguments are falsifiable. The DEW theory itself remains non-falsifiable.
  5. The theory must use the scientific method.

These are my standards.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

leveraging decades into the movement

Webster Tarpley:
I personally speak with Webster since we are both active members in dc911truth. His latest interview with Steven Jones publicly shows that his position has shifted. He no longer thinks the use of DEWs likely.

....I do think it is worthy of study, not ridicule.

I attack the studies that have been applied to the concept. The methodology is god-awful, almost all of the so-called evidence is blatant misinterpretations, and absolutely none of the evidence supports the use of DEWs. I know I sometimes personally ridicule those that have promoted the work because my fuse is a bit short and I suffer from character flaws like any other person, but the vast majority of my work addresses the issues scientifically, point by point. This is not ridicule, rather the illumination of fatal flaws in reasoning.

In turn I would politely ask you why you have chosen to devote so much time yourself to this issue if it is, as you claim , utterly worthless? You might be seen as giving it the oxygen of publicity. ... he has himself devoted so much time and thought to debunking it.

Two hours of back-of-the-envelope calculations had me personally convinced that it was impossible that DEWs did not bring down the towers. So what is my motivation for burning my time in publicly condemning the 'research'? Obviously, it serves no direct personal benefit.

However, people spend their valuable time investigating this stuff. Others have taught me a great deal regarding the attacks of 9/11 saving me much time. I wanted to return the favor to the community which has done so much for me personally. The way I figure it, it took me about 2 weeks to write the paper, but I can save hundreds or thousands of activists weeks of time by walking them through some pertinent arguments. I just leveraged decades of time into the movement by saving others weeks of time. Those ain't small apples.

Secondarily, the public promotion of ideas which would take veteran, seasoned physicists much less than an hour to thoroughly debunk is a bad recruiting technique. I personally beleive that the movement desperately needs more scientists, and I can personally guarantee that this type of bunk will send them screaming in the opposite direction.

The idea that I may incidentally promote DEWs by attacking the concept is well founded. This is a matter of gauging which side of the double-edged sword is sharpest. However, when Judy Wood appeared on a local DC radio station (my own backyard) which had not carried anything regarding 9/11 Truth, and the entire hour program was solely devoted to DEW demolition, it became painfully clear to me which side of the sword required immediate dulling.

DEW evidence required:
1. A power source which can be feasibly harnessed into energy beams which outputs about 1000 earths of power.
2. Massive amounts of iron in the dust, >40% by weight, to convince me that the steel in the towers was turned to dust
3. Evidence that any appreciable amount of steel was missing from the debris piles. This would necessarily include a detailed analysis of the sublevel collapses which were partially filled with debris.
4. Evidence that the beam could not physically be scattered by dust and/or the towers all over lower manhatten which would have vaporized and severely burned people and massively damaged surrounding buildings.
5. Evidence that the beam could not physically superheat the water vapor and other air constituents which would superheat the air in and immediately surrounding the beam thus causing at a minimum massive optical distortions. More severely, it would cause sonic shock waves from the sudden change in air pressure and air ablation.
6. A plausible scenerio which causes the towers to collapse well below the roof line and symmetrically

If ANY of the first 3 points are unambiguously proven, I will reconsider my position. If all 6 points are proven, then I would change my position immediately. However, the current lack of ALL the above points should necessarily make anyone who believes that DEWs brought down the towers reconsider their position....

Airports illustrate 1,000 times the Earth's output of energy.

Oh, are you saying beam weapons require 5 times the amount of energy available on earth to smash a building? Is that why the "terrorists" used "planes"? Is that what you are trying to convince us of?

Let's see, the towers are no longer there.

Perhaps you are saying plane crashes create 10 times the total power output of the earth. So, are you saying that if you go to an airport, you'll see at least 1,000 times the amount of power on Earth?

By the way, how much energy does the earth output every day?
Please be clear with the number of significant digits you can verify.

I haven't seen an extension cord running from the earth to anywhere. So, to where does the earth output its energy? And, how much does "the earth" charge per kilowatt-hour?

My guess is that Mr. Jenkins will be changing his story after this post.

I'm very impressed at how clever you are

No one that I know that accepts the notion that planes + fire brought down the towers suggests that in the process large amounts of steel were vaporized. Nor does the conventional CD hypothesis state that an appreciable percentage of the steel in the towers was vaporized. Judy Wood does support this notion. The problem is that it would take well over 5 earths of power to vaporize the steel in the towers.

'5 earths of power' is referenced in my paper and I reference the source, but I guess you prefer the lackadaisical approach and have the information spoon fed to you. '1 earth of power' is the net amount of power harnessed by human beings from the earth including hydro-electric, all carbon combustion, wind, etc..

You will never know the level of intelligence your post has conveyed. So well thought out, so deep, and let's not forget so clever. Brilliant. Bravo.

A few questions for Jim Fetzer...

1. Why have people within the JFK Truth Movement shared experiences with me about how disruptive you are?

2. Why have people within the JFK Truth Movement shared experiences with me about how you like to promote outlandish theories?

3. Did you recently make a spectacle of yourself at a Joan Mellen book signing? If so, why?

4. Why did you promote WingTV on your site for months with full knowledge of the fact that they have relentlessly attacked good members of the 9/11 Truth Movement?

5. If a theory you have is proven to be wrong, why do you continue to promote it?

6. Why do you think someone like Jesse Ventura would say something like, "Jim Fetzer thinks everything is a conspiracy."

Thanks for your time.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

you forgot a few....

7. why did your revamped Scholars website very prominently place a link to - a KNOWN disinformation website that promotes 'no-plane' theories and links to known junk science websites?

8. why have you been linked to NY911Truth activist Tom Foti (who appears to copy you on his emails regarding disruptions in NYC that do not involve you) - when Tom Foti was recently OPENLY ACCUSED of being a cointelpro agent by Father Frank Morales of St. Marks Church. What is your relationship to Tom Foti?

9. Why are the ONLY activists who seem to promote your work appear themselves to be disruptors at the center of in-fighting, online smear campaigns, threats of violence and purveyors of disinformation? Why do you seem to ONLY attract such fans?

10. How does a coward like you get accepted by the Marines - sworn to fight to protect or Constitution?

Wait a second...

When was the last time you denounced Haupt, Woods, Reynolds, or Fetzer for ad-hominems... I don't seem to recall, perhaps you could refresh my memory.

Woe is me.....

I have treated you nicer than most of the people on this site. And that is a fact.

I never said “don’t consider this”. I have said support your arguments with reason. When you fail to do that—you are not only cheating everyone on this site, you are cheating yourself.

I have tried to explain this to you repeatedly but it seems you prefer to misrepresent my position (i.e. straw-man).


What a coincidence. You support space beams and smear jones. You have such good company.

Answers to Objections

1. CD is normally bottom - led not top - down.

Answer: Controlled demolition is controlled. They can set the explosives off where and at what speed they want.

2. The size of the towers would have involved a lot of explosives, which would have had to be planted secretly.

Straw-man: This disproves that they were used? Bush’s brother was in charge of security.

3. Thee would have been a risk of those explosives going off when the planes hit.

Straw-man: How do you know they didn’t go off? If you look at the videos—it’s possible that this happened. Thermite does not explode easily. I’m not saying that it did, but the crashes look suspicious to me.

4.Thermite/Thermate alone cannot account for the explosive ejection of masive iron girders.

Straw-man: This is classic disinformation promoted by Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer. Steven Jones has never said Thermite was ONLY used. You don’t need to know which explosives are used to observe the 11 features of controlled demolition. These effects are independently observable from their cause.

5.There is no explanation for the mid-air 'dustification of the core of WTC1 or the top section of WTC2.

Answer: There is no credible evidence that a space beam caused this. Are you saying it’s impossible explosives could not have done this?

6.The towers did not implode like WTC7, or even explode, they were turned instantly into microscopic dust.

Answer: Watch the videos. They are clearly exploding. A space beam could not account for these observations. And it was not converted into "microscopic" dust. Read the official studies or Greg Jenkin’s paper on this issue.

7.Basement bombs would have destroyed the lower stories. These were left standing in ruins.

Straw-man: Did you not see the photos of the lobby? The glass was blown out. Don’t you remember 1993? They didn’t destroy the towers then either with basement bombs.

8.The infrastructure underneath the towers was undamaged. This must rule out mini - nukes, which would have left a crater, not to mention radioactive debris.

Straw-man: Anyone can take photos or news accounts out of context to create the impression that something didn’t happen. Read Jenkins and Gourley in the Journal. The Bath-tub was significantly damaged.

9. What caused the partial burning of cars?

Answer: Thermite. The burn marks are characteristic of thermite. The cars were then moved during the cleanup. Read Gourley’s paper in the Journal of 9/11 studies.

10. Why did paper not burn? Why was an ambulance burnt out INSIDE but not outside? (Like a British Rail Bacon Butty??)

Straw-man: See answer for #8. There is plenty of evidence of burned paper. Just because all of the paper doesn’t burn it suddenly becomes suspicious?

This is a big question for me

5.There is no explanation for the mid-air 'dustification of the core of WTC1 or the top section of WTC2.

Answer: There is no credible evidence that a space beam caused this. Are you saying it’s impossible explosives could not have done this?

The top section is so massive, and it happened so quickly, that I wonder what did it. I'm not saying it was not explosives or that it is proof of some other type of weapon - I'm just saying, what the &%*#?

A few points ----

Point #5: As far as we know, nothing in known science can explain thes phenonema. this is why research is not only important , it is essential. And you are using a straw man here: I never mentioned a beam weapon. My money would be on something like anti-matter weaponry or ultrasound, which Greg discusses above.

Hmmmm.... The explanation that the spires fell (as opposed to disappearing i.e. does not appear in the dust although it allegedly turned into dust!) seems to me to qualify as a plausible explanation which fits observation from multiple camera angles.

Point #8: It was damaged , yes, but not in the way that you would expect from CD

Huh? What would you expect it to look like?

Point #9:The towing of the cars has not been proved, though it is probable. Do you have evidence that thermite causes partial deformation , shattering of wing mirrors and door handles and cars burnt inside but not out? Study the photographs on Wood's site.

Check out the 'K-mart' video I link to in one of my posts on the first page of this blog. You will see a minivan which burned with missing door handles and missing tire in the k-mart parking lot. No space beams there, so the door handle issue is probably related to differences in thermal expansion/contraction of the door vs door handles. Shattering glass by heating it is also demonstrated and can explain the wing mirrors and shattered windsheilds, etc.. Note that all you need is the vehicle to ignite, doesn't matter how it is done. Check out 'totovader' videos which I link to in the same post --- he explains "why this firetruck wilts" --- it was crushed by debris and subsequently moved to a different location. This misrepresented picture still remains on Dr. Wood's website even though it has been thoroughly explained.

As far as vehicles only burned on the inside --- Do you know that the vehicle was not burned anywhere on the outside, or do you only know that a side or two were not scorched? Maybe the fire was extinguished with a firehose, thus preventing the pictured sides of the vehicle to not heat up?

Point #10:
There are pictures of charred compressed paper in the WTC rubble pile (I would link to it, but I would have to dig it up first. If you feel this is important to see, then I can find it, otherwise I won't bother). Also, there are eyewitness accounts of burning paper raining down onto the streets which is cited in the reference section of my paper. Some paper did burn. And, BTW, are the flames from the cars somehow incapable of igniting paper? Please consider the reason that you may not have many photos of burning paper is because individual sheets of paper, if ignited, would completely burn very quickly.

No such thing as "dustification"

"There is no explanation for the mid-air 'dustification of the core of WTC1 or the top section of WTC2."

I would add to you excellent rebutals that there is no such thing as dustification--that's a word Wood pulled out of her arse. Much as the 911Commision Report misapplied "global collapse"--an economic effect, NOT a description of physical effects.

"Newspeak" annoys Jenny...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

hey, uh, could you take your personal battles off the site?

Because, like, I'm sure I speak for everyone in the universe when I say that no one thinks any of this space beam crap is worth arguing over. Really, give the Admins a break--this is ridiculous.

What a shitty little hypocrite you are.

For those wondering why I posted this reply, see this post by Arabesque...

Enough already...
I don’t object to free speech and to expressing views. But there is a difference between doing this in a civil and uncivil way (i.e. name calling and sarcastic diatribes) resulting in endless flame wars.

Take your personal battles off this site. I don’t care about them, and I’m sure I speak for most of the people on this site.

Give the Admins a break. This is ridiculous.

Submitted by Arabesque on Sat, 04/07/2007 - 5:19pm

in response to this:

I think it's only fair to report
That as of yesterday's closed down thread the Powers that Be at 911Blogger have made it official--I may not respond to Jon Gold's posts and he may not respond to mine.

I want people to know that since I am now not allowed to contest anything that Jon Gold posts, the lack of criticism of his posts will not be by choice, so you may want to ask yourself "hmmmm, what would RT have to say about this?" :)

Actually if I see anything particularly egregious, or maybe even just as a matter of routine, I may post "responses to Jon Gold" at my website (


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force

Submitted by Real Truther on Sat, 04/07/2007 - 6:09am.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Civil vs. Uncivil

Learn the difference.

Dr. Jenkins and I are debating in a civil manner an issue that is very damaging to the truth movement.

And no, calling this discussion a “crapfest” is not civil. It’s immature and divisive rubbish. Take your uncivil diatribes off of this site.

the point is not about civility in this case

It's about how months after we thought we had settled the issue that the space beam proponents are dishonest (misrepresenting as they do low res videos to advance some absurd "dustification" nonsense) you continue to engage them in dialogue for some reason. My guess is that when people argue against obvious disinfo (like Nico or space beams) it is a transparent attempt to build up "truth-cred" by grappling with a straw man.

Since I'm often told to stop pursuing unproductive arguments, and since you felt the need to add your voice to the last instance for some reason, I think it should be noted that as far as wasting bandwidth on pointless discussions as evidenced in this thread you really should not be throwing stones in my direction.

Whereas you justify your activities by claiming that space beams are harmful to the movement (when in fact they are such obvious BS that your deigning to argue about them just lends them undue credibility) I think my arguments, even the ones that are turned nasty by the other parties, actually cover important differences of opinion over an issue that truly threatens the movement, which is the likelihood that the powers that be will try to pre-empt the truth movement by offering up an alternate scapegoat in the form of Pakistan that will serve to keep intact the racist core of the 9/11 lie which is that any arabs or muslims knowingly had a hand in the most important aspect of the crime which is the destruction of the twin towers on top of hundreds and hundreds of people.

Arguing about space beams--indeed filling up five pages of comments on the blog post of someone like Jim Fetzer may enable you to showcase just how civilly you can discuss nonsense, but it doesn't do much to advance the cause of truth.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Ja, Herr Vatson

denounce ze 9/11 heretics immediately or face ze consequences!

(cleaning Emirates Stadium with a toothbrush)

Yo! Dudes!

Can we all just lighten up a bit?

Jiminy Crickets!

I know everyone is a little anxious right now with this possible run up to WW3, but come on........

If anyone reading this is not interested in getting new (real) investigations ASAP, then just move on already.

I'll still love you. I just won't want to share a foxhole with you.

Rosie O'Donnell rocks !!!!!!!!

(nothing better than chocolate after midnight, LOL)

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.


Are not unreasonable questions.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Show "Nice observation, Andrew!" by Jim Fetzer

What's this...?

A professor of logic promoting ad-hominem fallacies?

I am tempted to quote Fetzer:

"THIS is the sign of a scholar? No, this is the sign of a FRAUD."


very near a zero percent chance

Notice how in the little picture that neutrinos transmit *through* the earth. That is because neutrinos have an extremely low probability of actually interacting with matter --- *any* matter. The massive earth is virtually transparent to neutrinos. Neutrino detectors (mainly to study the massive neutrino bursts which emanate from somewhat unknown locations in the universe) use massive amounts of water and thousands of photomultiplier tube detectors to try to statistically detect neutrino interaction events from these stange, extremely massive neutrino bursts integrated over periods of years.

I do not know what the probability of interaction of neutrinos with just a few kg's of dense plutonium/uranium would be, but it can't be that much. Do you know if this has been tested, or how long the beam would have to impinge upon a nuclear device to have any hope of triggering a nuclear event?

BTW, over 90% of the article you link to is chock-full of BS.

Just like Tesla, many scientist over-inflate their research for the 'gee-wiz' factor. It is good publicity, some publishers will more likely publish an article that sounds incredible, and they can get more funding. In fact, Tesla was known for his grandiose exaggerations! This is not a reflection on his work, only a candid evaluation of his PR tactics.

For instance, a scientist who is studying string theory may publish an article entitled "Free energy: All the energy that the world would ever need". This raises people's interest, but in the article you find out that the length scale which the energy fluctuations take place is Plank's scale (~10^-34 meters), and there is no way to tap it. In fact, there is no way to directly observe it (to date, there is no way to unambiguously indirectly verify that it exists). After reading and studying the issue, you find out that scientists really have no idea whether string theory, although there are certainly promising leads, even remotely describes physical reality.

For the record, Tesla was a genius who invented the transformer as well as electric motors and generators. These were the foundations of the modern AC power grid. He did other things as well, like radio control. His experiments centered around the cutting edge technological developments of electrodynamics at the time. However, the progression of scientific understanding has long surpassed his work by about 60 or 70 years, and many other scientific geniuses have come and gone.

So, to answer the question from the article you linked to:
"Did an additional Neutrino Weapon 'Test' took place on 9/11?"
The answer is an emphatic no. Well, it is possible that a *test* took place, but it is physically impossible that neutrinos had anything to do with the collapse of the towers, so would make such a test an exceedingly stupid thing to do (chopping down the tower with a spoon would be more likely). It is impossible that neutrinos destroyed the towers, because neutrinos have very near a zero percent chance of interacting with *any* of the matter which existed in the towers.

What about positrons?

Is this for real?

The quote at the end is interesting:

"If we spend another $10 billion (using ordinary chemical techniques), we're going to get better high explosives, but the gains are incremental because we're getting near the theoretical limits of chemical energy."

Was 9/11 within or beyond the limits of chemical energy, given the [unknown] constraints of planting the explosives in adequate amounts?

Can you think of a scenario using an antimatter weapon? I'm just asking!

Nature Abhors a vacuum

Positrons are real. They are, basically, a positively charged electron. They are usually generated in colliders (accelerate a couple of particles and smash them into each other at very high, relativistic speeds) ---- they are generated in other nuclear reactions as well, but my nuclear physics is very much on the rusty side so I can't really speak much about it. Here, by 'nuclear reaction' I mean a quantum mechanical type reactions which can only occur in the vicinity of a nucleus of an atom. For instance, it is possible to actually generate electrons from photons and vice versa, and happens naturally all the time.

Needless to say, the antiparticles generated in colliders are short lived because as soon as they hit regular matter in the 'bubble chamber' which contain electrons, they are annhilated. Electron + Positron --> energy via E=mc^2=hf, where m = the mass of electron + positron, c is the speed of light, h is planck's constant, and f is the frequency of the resulting electromagnetic radiation released (there is probably at least 2 photons generated from the reaction in order to conserve momentum which would make f-> 2f in the above equation).

It is also possible to trap charged particles in electromagnetic 'traps'. However, there are some problems with containing any large amount of antimatter in *any* trap for any sustained amount of time: Nature abhors a vacuum. That is, there does not exist a perfect vacuum. This means you have regular gas particles floating around even in he best of vacuums. You put antimatter into any trap, and the gas available in the non-perfect vacuum will eventually collide and anhiliate your antimatter.

Hell, this type of collision is even a problem in 'normal' ion trapping in optical experiments, especially those experiments where you are super-cooling the atoms in the trap.... the atoms outside of your trap collide with the atoms in your trap causing much sorrow ----

So, generating and trapping antimatter is defnitely possible. Generating significant amounts of antimatter I don't think has been done yet, and containment (even if you have a nice trap) would be a problem to sustain due to the imperfect nature of a vacuum. My guess is that containment probably only lasts for a very small fraction of a second due to inherent vacuum limitiations, but I don't know for sure what the time limit would be ----

As for a limit to chemical explosions: Yes, it makes sense that a well defined finite amount of energy will be obtained from any given exothermic chemical reaction. Optimizing the rate of reaction, I would suppose, is the name of the game, so it is definitely plausible that they are reaching physical limits, although I do not know whether this limitation has been reached.

I know that Steven Jones and others have estimated the actual amounts of explosives necessary to bring down the towers, and it is not implausible, but it is quite alot of explosives (I remember numbers like ~ tons, but my memory is a bit foggy on this specific point).

Regarding your last question:
Yeah, it is physically allowable for antimatter to make a potent explosive device. Please note that this is different than stating that it is technologically possible to do! I think it extremely unlikely at present. You have to make and trap enough of it which I think is not currently possible.

Keep in mind that some weapons programs are funded based upon shear paranoia. Money is sometimes spent on things which are only remotely possible. Currently, quantum computers are the big rage due to the inherent power of encrypting/decrypting using quantum logic (Q-bits) instead of regular gate-type logic. If "evil-auto" got his hands on one, he could decrypt all of the encryption of the US armed forces and the banking system. Therefore, big bucks are spent to make sure that if it is remotely possible to develop, then Uncle Sam will be the owner before anyone else can make one. Who cares how much it costs, the dumb-ass taxpayers will pay for it anyway, and not know they are paying for something which is entirely unnecessary, and is going to take many decades to develop any semblance to a computer.

I don't know with any degree of certainty, but I would suspect that antimatter devices may be of the same ilk.

glad to see we're getting our money's worth!

Having contributed a substantial portion of the costs of the new server, I want to get in on this crapfest, seeing as how after getting a rating of 2.4 with 40 votes it's still going strong into the 3 digits in comments.

Let's see...

Space beams are BS! Jim Fetzer is a fat windbag with some kind of stroke-like facial issues!

The holocaust is a fiction built up around the fact that Jews were interned in camps much as Japanese were in the US!

Um, let's see, that's about 25 cents worth... Oh yeah, I know--Mark Bingham and Todd Beamer are living in presumed-dead sin in San Fran with their dog "Shanky".

Cool, OK, let's talk some more about space beams.... did Judy Jetson dream during her 7 year coma? What did she dream about? Sitting on Uncle Fetzer's face?

Come on let's see if we can hit 500 comments by Monday!!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


I value my time

Thank you for contributing to the costs of the server, but don't tell me I shouldn't talk about issues I think are important. The sum total of this debate is that we don't know what weapons exist. We agree that the towers were obliterated by something more than planes, fires, and gravity. I don't see why it is such a big problem if we question what happened.

sorry Ningen, I was just pointing out a double standard

one reason I contributed to the server fund is because I don't think that there should be limits imposed on commenting, nor do I think that we really need to limit our topics of discussion so strictly. I've noticed though that some threads seem to be "more equal than others" when it comes to being shut down.

It seems that while people with very little credibility can post blogs about totally speculative and in most people's opinion (judging by the overwhelmingly negative ratings of this post) dubious material, others find more restrictive policies applying to theirs.

I happen to think, for example, that the way the holocaust has been historically abused and to an important degree misrepresented is quite relevant to the issue of 9/11, which in many ways has been deliberately linked to the holocaust. So when you argue that I shouldn't tell you not to talk about issues you think are important I am in complete agreement.

My comment above was born of the frustration I feel over the double standards being applied on this site, sorry if it came across as a personal attack. I absolutely do not believe in censorship, but I believe even less in selective censorship.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force