Dusting-off Corley: Is this the official response to the discovery of energetic materials in the WTC dust?

It has been over a year since the most recent peer-reviewed scientific article was published on the finding of energetic materials in the WTC dust.[i] During this time, the article was personally delivered to members of Congress and others in positions of power.[ii] Some of those leaders, like 9/11 Commission co-chairman Lee Hamilton, have repeatedly declined invitations to discuss the evidence.[iii] But ultimately, there has been no official response by the U.S. government, and we have seen only apathy or feigned ignorance in response to these explosive findings. In the last few months, however, one of the people who did the most to cover-up the crimes of 9/11 has surfaced again, and is requesting samples.
Immediately after the article was published, it appeared that a response might be forthcoming due to inexplicable damage to several packages sent, via the US Postal Service, between some of the investigators who were involved. When my colleague Steven Jones sent a sample of the red-gray chips to my post office box in late April 2009, the samples had been removed from the double envelope package through a series of slits just barely big enough to slide the small vial out. The postal inspector never responded to my complaint. But when I later mailed something to my colleague James Gourley, the envelope arrived with a corner ripped out, in a gross kind of damage that neither of us had ever seen.[iv] 
Over the next few months we saw unprecedented attacks levied on the journal that published the paper. The editors of the journal were pummeled with email and blog attacks and one of them, who had not been involved in review of the paper, resigned. Some attackers even sought to discredit the Bentham Science family of journals, of which the Open Chemical Physics journal was one member, by submitting phony articles to see if they could get published. Discrediting Bentham Science would not have fully removed the threat to the official story, however, because the evidence for energetic materials at the WTC is supported by peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals other than just Bentham.[v],[vi] 
It is not certain if the mail tampering or the attacks against Bentham Science were responses from those who created the official reports. More recent events, however, suggest that our corporate-funded politicians might have decided to produce an official response to the article after all. 
In January of this year, one of the independent sample collectors who provided WTC dust to our investigative team wrote to me about an inquiry.
“I got a call last night from a guy named Jay Levin, the founder of the LA Weekly. …He recently interviewed a Gene Corley…[who] is a forensic engineer and was hired by FEMA to look for (certain) things in the dust. Evidence of explosives wasn't one of them. …apparently, he now wants to have another look. If this is potentially a whistle-blower scenario, it could be a wonderful thing…”
Jay Levin is an editor and writer who has done a few articles on the 9/11 Truth movement and, in doing so, has earned the trust of some of the movement’s leaders.[vii],[viii] Although Levin’s articles have been more fair to the cause of truth than the average mainstream media hit pieces have been, that’s not saying much.   And according to one of these articles, Levin is also writing a book about the “WTC scientific dispute.” 
Levin’s former company, LA Weekly, is now owned by Village Voice Media, a conglomeration of weekly newspapers. This conglomeration includes the Phoenix New Times, which has published some of the most abysmal attacks against the 9/11 Truth movement.[ix],[x],[xi] The current New Times executive editor and Village Voice majority owner is Michael Lacey, who has run rough-shod over the organization and worked to dumb-down the news products since he took over the organization in 2005.[xii],[xiii] Levin is apparently not associated with that company any longer.
In any case, Gene Corley was not hired by FEMA to examine the WTC dust. He was hired by FEMA to lead the entire WTC investigation, which at the time was termed an “assessment.” Six years earlier, Corley had also led the investigation into what happened at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, and the resulting report was found to have been very poorly done.[xiv] 
For years after 9/11, Corley was the voice of the ever-changing, but always non-explosive, story for what happened at the WTC. 
  • He led the FEMA investigation which gave us the now defunct “pancake theory"
  • Five months later he was a member of the Silverstein-Weidlinger insurance claim team that produced the "columns only" theory (opposite of the pancake theory).
  • He was the primary official theory spokesman in all the mainstream media video programs, including those produced by NOVA and the AE/History Channel, that were for years used as the major vehicles for public consumption.
  • Leftist commentators like Matthew Rothschild turned to Corley to provide “independent” confirmation of the official story.[xv]
  • He provided "public comments" in support of the NIST investigation.
  • He helped produce the NIST WTC 7 report as indicated by the fact that he is listed in NCSTAR 1A as one of NIST's "experts and consultants"
  •  And last but not least, he posed as a reporter during NIST media sessions, lobbing softball questions to kill the time.[xvi]
Considering these facts, promoting Corley as an independent scientist for a new WTC investigation is like promoting 9/11 Commission director Phillip Zelikow, or suspect Osama Bin Laden, for the same job.
I wrote back to the sampler and suggested to him that Corley could probably obtain his own WTC dust samples. After all, Corley had supposedly waded through WTC dust for months. Why was he asking for our samples?
Mr. Levin replied to our sampler saying that he understood the hesitation to send samples to Corley, because, “to be honest,” Corley was a supporter of the official “collapse” theory. Levin went on,
“I have found a lot of good and knowledgeable people with no connection to the government, just as there are many similar people who argue with it. NIST's behavior re the testing might be atrocious but whether you want to believe it or
not, not everyone who examines the world trade data and concludes the collapse happened without explosives is covering up something. There is a genuine disagreement among independent experts.”
But Gene Corley is not a good person with “no connection to the government”, and he is certainly not an “independent expert.” On the contrary, he represented the government as he created a false engineering report for what happened at OKC, and later several false and contradictory engineering reports for the WTC. 
Corley is also an alumnus of the military establishment at Fort Belvoir[xvii], which has many connections to 9/11 including Stratesec COO Barry McDaniel, the Able Danger project[xviii], al Qaeda[xix], and Ali Muhammed.[xx] Others who have served as 9/11 debunkers are Fort Belvoir alumni as well, like John Fisher, who was one of the few actual engineering experts for Popular Mechanics, and apparently, Frank Greening.[xxi]
In his attempt to promote Corley’s involvement, Levin went on to explain to our sampler how it would not be of any risk to the independent investigators.
“To my way of thinking if Corley tests and says he came up with nothing, it will change nothing. Steve Jones and everyone else will still maintain that NIST has to test in a manner credible to outsiders. And if Jones does come up with something and announces it, that is a potential game changer - and a hell of a story for a journalist.”
Oddly enough, Mr. Levin forgot to mention what would happen if Gene Corley tested our samples and “found” something quite the opposite of what we found.
Our sampler reported these comments from Levin with “a growing sense of dread.”
Steven Jones took the liberty of responding to Mr. Levin at this point, suggesting that Corley use his influence to get some samples from an “official” source.
“Jay, Here is my recommendation: request that Mr. Corley acquire several ‘official’ WTC dust samples directly from the USGS, and scrutinize these for red/gray chips as defined in our paper. Based on our scientific team's experience, those samplings taken nearer to ‘ground zero’ will be more likely to contain larger numbers of these red/gray particles, so the ‘nearest samples’ should be sought.”
Apparently Corley did not like that suggestion, because although Mr. Levin did not respond for several weeks, he approached our sampler again. This is how it went as reported by the sampler.
“Now, the strange news: Jay Levin, who first called me as Janette was about to go in for her biopsy, called me again just minutes after she came out of surgery last night, claiming that he came across my email, but couldn't remember who I was (apologies for his uncharacteristic lack of organization), so I "reminded" him of our last emails and that I'm not giving up any dust to Dr. Corley. Once the phony formalities were out of the way, he bent my ear for about 20 minutes as my Indian food got cold. He was saying that if his findings were to corroborate your findings, that would be big news! I won't bore you with all the details, but will say that I came away with a bad feeling not only about Gene Corley, but about him as well. He did say that Corley would follow up on Steven's advice, if he can, but isn't sure that he can get his hands on the necessary equipment. This too seems a little odd..”
Needless to say, the samples were not sent to Mr. Corley or Mr. Levin. However it does seem unlikely that Levin couldn’t remember the earlier conversation about what would have been “a hell of a story for a journalist.”
Three months later, Levin approached Steven Jones again. He appeared to have found another independent analyst to test the WTC dust and confirm our findings. Unlike Corley, this one seemed to have read our paper but was skeptical.
“I spoke to Don Broton again at the CTL lab about what he needs to test with an xray defraction cross section. He said a piece that was a few millimeters and referenced the 4 millimeters he said was mentioned in your research report. And he added "of course the bigger piece the better" for the purposes of the cross-section. 
As to the specifics, he said he can find "striklingly (sic) similar" element compositions in fly ash where the "map scans are kind of similar in their peak indentifications (sic)" to yours. .
He said the reason your tests are not definitive is that virtually all the elements were present in the WTC and various element bondings may have occurred. (By the way he is the third chemist I know of who has said this.) He said man made nano-thermite would have a very distinct pattern would likely be revealed by x-ray defraction which I told him I gather you understood as you had sent some dust to another lab for the test.”
What Mr. Levin didn’t say is that the independent analyst he found worked for Gene Corley’s company, CTL Group. Gene Corley is the Senior Vice President of CTL Group,[xxii] and the new independent analyst, Don Broton, works for Gene Corley.
The “fly ash” statement was also interesting. This was the exact same “debunker” response to the microspheres found in the WTC dust, long before the red-gray chips had been found. Perhaps Corley and Broton had their stories mixed up.
In any case, Gene Corley, someone who for years was the leading spokesman for the official engineering reports on the WTC, is now intent on getting samples from the independent investigators leading the scientific investigation into what happened at the WTC. This suggests that Corley will be providing the official response to the discovery of energetic materials in the WTC dust. 
Additionally, the fact that Jay Levin doesn't appear to know who Gene Corley is suggests that Levin might not be the best person to write additional articles and a book on the “WTC scientific dispute.” We can hope, however, that he is honest enough to admit that.

[i] Niels H. Harrit, et al, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol 2, 2009, doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007, http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
[ii] This article has been hand delivered to Vice President Biden, Senator John Kerry, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Representative Barney Frank,, Senator JD Rockefeller, Senator Richard Lugar, Senator Lindsay Graham, and Senator John Kyl. The article has been confirmed to be delivered through email to Senator Evan Bayh. Senator Harry Reid was handed the article and refused to take it, as occurred with Newt Gingrich.
[iii] Kevin R. Ryan, Will Lee Hamilton Examine the evidence?, 911blogger.com, 3/13/2010, http://911blogger.com/node/22907
[iv] Was someone looking for samples in the US mail?, ULtruth.com, http://www.ultruth.com/Mail%20damage.htm
[v] Kevin R. Ryan, et al, Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials, The Environmentalist, Volume 29, Number 1 / March, 2009, http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/
[vi] Steven E. Jones et al, Extremely High Temperatures During the World Trade Center Destruction, Journal of 9/11 Studies, January 2008 http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
[vii] Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie, Twin Towers, Twin Myths?, Santa Barbara Independent, September 17, 2009, http://www.independent.com/news/2009/sep/17/twin-towers-twin-myths/
[viii] Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie, Explosive Theory: Eight years after 9/11, a growing organization of building trades professionals suspect that there was more to the event than the government will admit, MetroActive, September 9, 2009, http://www.metroactive.com/metro/09.09.09/cover-0936.html
[ix] Stephen Lemons, The Yoda of 9/11: Pat Curley slices through the loony conspiracy theories at his influential "Screw Loose Change" Web site, Phoenix New Times, Aug 9 2007, http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-08-09/news/the-yoda-of-9-11/1
[x] Stephen Lemons,, Noam Chomsky and the 9/11 nutbars: Why they suck and he doesn't., Phoenix New Times, Aug 15 2007,
[xi] Stephen Lemons, 9/11 "Troof," Ed Begley, Jr., and Why Van Jones Needed to Go, September 11, 2009, http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2009/09/911_truth_dylan_avery_vs_pat_c.php
[xii] Mark Jacobsen, The Voice from beyond the grave, New York Magazine, November 6, 2005, http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/14987/ 
[xiv] Oklahoma Bombing Committee, Final Report on the Bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building, http://www.okcbombing.net/books&videos.htm
[xv] Kevin R. Ryan, Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC “Experts”, Globalresearch.ca, March 13, 2007, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5071
[xvi] Archived webcast video of NIST press briefing, NIST News Release website, June 23, 2005 (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_june2305.htm), 01:15:10.
[xvii] Testimony of Gene Corley before the House Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards, March 6, 2002, p 10, http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Communications/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf
[xviii] Wayne Madsen, Able Danger and DIA had advanced knowledge of 9/11, Online Journal, Sept 11th, 2009, http://www.prisonplanet.com/able-danger-and-dia-had-advanced-knowledge-of-911.html
[xix] J.M. Berger, Al Qaeda Recruited U.S. Servicemen: Testimony Links Plot To Saudi Gov't, IntelWire.com, July 01, 2004, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1164071/posts
[xx] Peter Dale Scott, 9/11, JFK, and War: Recurring Patterns in America’s Deep Events, Journal of 9/11 Studies, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/ProfScottJFK,911,andWar.pdf
[xxi] Did Frank Greening attend the US Army's engineer officer candidate school at Fort Belvoir?, ULtruth.com, http://www.ultruth.com/Greening.htm
[xxii] SkokieNet, Interview with Dr. Gene Corley - Internationally Renowned Structural Engineer Based in Skokie, April 22 2007,   http://www.skokienet.org/node/3876

Gene Corley can rot in hell.

In my book, Gene Corley has the blood of many innocent people on his hands.

Kevin Ryan's presentation where he mentions Corley and Oklahoma City

Corley gets around

Excellent sleuthing work, Kevin --

as usual. I deeply appreciate your insights through the years.

You have identified one of the main insiders, IMO.

I concur

amazing piece. Looks like you managed to flush one of "them" out Kevin. Prepare to take some flak when you're over the target.. Be safe, be well, and God Bless.

P.S. Someone should ask this Corley if he's ever taken the time to actually OBSERVE and TIME the destruction of the Twin Towers, compare that to the time for absolute free fall in air (about 10 seconds) and then place that observation within the context of Newton's 3 Laws of Motion.. The physical proof is in the actual occurance of destruction, as much as it is in the chemical composition of some dust samples, in fact, it's plain as day, in plain sight. The buildings could not possibly have "collapsed", that's not what occured, not in reality.

Thought Experiment: Free falling safe or grand piano = 10 seconds - Towers utterly destroyed from top to bottom = 13 seconds.

Therefore, since the comparison is between nothing (but air) and the entire remaining length of steel structure, core and perimeter included - the entire process of destruction or "breakage" of every weld and joint and bolt and all the rebar imbedded cement, must and can ONLY occur within the difference ie: within three seconds, for the entire remaining length of structure, in the case of the north tower, about 95 floors...!

One two three

I don't think so.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and, an object in motion will remain in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force of resistence.

There was no loss of momentum, all the way to the ground - and that is utterly absurd, absent the use of explosives blowing out the structure just beneath or below the exploding debris wave. Simple as that.

What's interesting is given the towers sheer HEIGHT, they lend themselves very well to this proof, yet little has been done by actual physicists (in combination with structural engineers) in this regard I just, don't, get it..?

The "smoking gun" is the videos of the destruction of those buildings. David Chandler seems to be the only person who's really worked this aspect - why is that..? It's grade 10 physics, isn't it..? Why no peer reviewed paper on this the near free fall aspect...? I just don't understand how something so obvious cannot lend itself to physics, and be falsifyable, and therefore, UNDEBUNKABLE by physicists, since the laws of physics are inviolate and immutable.

Sorry for rambling, but this point has always driven me bananas, why we haven't been waving this proof in their faces all along, backed by independantly verifyable physical PROOF (as contained in the videos of destruction). I've emailed folks like you Stephen as well as the Architects and Engineers, and still no peer reviewed paper in a respected journal on the mechanics of the occurance of destruction PROVING the use of explosives... why not?!!! Is it just too OBVIOUS, too SIMPLE..?

So until that physics paper gets published...

which NO ONE will be able to debunk the whole world over, from generation to generation and from age to age, until the very end of time and not even then.. since it's an objective proof.

..we'll just have to assume that the north tower was crushed, by the top section, all the way to the ground, at about the SPEED OF SOUND..!

If I were an atheist, I'd like to call the official story about it "the foot of God hypothesis" to better illustrate the utter absurdity of it, but I'm not so I won't.

The proof HAS been published - BUT the psyops is still strong

NIST's admission of free fall for 2.25 seconds is PROOF of an external energy source. IT CAN"T GET ANY "PROOFIER!"

All the peer reviewed papers in the world can't "upgrade" the proof already proven.

Jones and Chandler nailed the coffin shut at the public hearling for comment on the draft report.


And so - I will ask for the umpteenth time: "Where are the psychiatrists and psychologists for 9/11 Truth?

Yes, there's that for WTC7

But what about the twin towers, why do we seem afraid to go there? Because they were hit by planes, thus making our claims appear to violate occams razor?

Given the occurance of destruction, and the speed of their destruction, relative to absolute free fall in nothing but air alone from the same height, no other conclusion can be drawn except that the plane impacts were a ruse, to create a false causal connection, which would further suggest that they (the planes) were not being piloted by Arab extremist terrorists at all, and therefore remotely piloted swapped out drones ie: an Operation Northwoods scenario.

The problem in terms of the twin towers' self evident controlled demolition resides in the fake causal mechanism of the plane impacts being directly and solely at cause, that's why we focus on Building 7, for credibility purposes.

But the principal aspect of the psy-op and the focal point of the events of that day are the destruction of the twin towers, and clearly, they WERE blown up from the top down, and this surely can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt in accordance with the immutable laws of physics..?

Zelikow once said that the catastrophic and catalyzing event need not even adhere to the laws of the universe provided that the prevailing viewpoint as to what happened could be upheld and supported by the relevant ruling class until the experiencing generation passed away thereafter retaining it's power to shape policy. I think he's wrong in the sense that the non experiencing generation, looking back with open eyes through the rear view mirror of 20/20 hindsight will see something entirely different, something based in reality which is congruent with the laws of the universe, thus making the FORMATIVE event, the revelation of the Big Lie, which contains embedded within itself the power to reverse and alter the course of history once again, and that's where we come in, and this is what our movement is for, to set the historical record straight, not to get a new investigation, which is not needed to see that the world was sold a barbaric and heinous and murderous LIE of far reaching proportions.

So we don't need to turn away from the proofs that the twin towers were also demolished with explosives, that's the focal point, and the proof that building 7 was brought down with explosives points a finger at the twin towers, and like I said, their sheer HEIGHT lends their 13 second occurance of destruction perfectly to iron clad (so to speak) PROOF that they could only have come down the way they did, as a result of explosives, and not via the plane impacts and fires, which were obviously given as a ruse and a false causal mechanism or an abuse of occam's razor to "sell" their complete and total destruction about an hour later, to the horrified, shocked and awed, watching world, thus completing the global psy-op as per Zelikow's original script (research his study group paper "Catastrophic Terrorism, Imagining the Transformative Event" which even makes mention of the world trade center from the perspective of the 1993 bombing successfully toppling the building(s)).

Talk about evil genious in terms of the use of the Big Lie, and it's got, in broad strokes, Philip Zelikow's fingerprints all over it, if you look at his academic background and various papers authored and study groups led, one of which included Robert Gates, the acting Secretary of Defence! Obama too is "in on it" by being complicit in covering up after the fact and continuing to sell the lie as a pretext to waging war, which is a war crime by any definition.

sorry again for rambling..

Everything you say makes perrfect sense to ME ---- but

the "shock and awe" dissolved into nothingness for ME in 5 seconds when I saw 7 come down - some five years ago. Until then, the psyops reigned in my mind.

BUT - The video of 7 coming straigjht down did NOT have the same effect on almost all of my friends (aged around (65).


Jones, Ryan, Chandler, Harrit, Gage, etc. have covered the bases for physics.

Griffin and MacQueen have covered the bases for theologists.


Positive Psychological Mindset

zmzmzm says,


Great question! I guess I am. Haven't you read my comments here on 9/11 Blogger the past six months concerning what I call Positive Psychological Mindset?

I wrote a comment on PPM two days ago:


My training is in Political Science, however it doesn't take a degree in psychology to determine that the 9/11 Truth Movement's strategy is the inverse of what it should be.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Show "So this is why you are engaged in O.M.?" by Kerberos


What is O.M.?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Show "First read the original post by KR" by Kerberos



what KR are you talking about? What is O.M.? What is the picture?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC


AUM - the sacred syllable, the formless form, the nothing that is everything and nothing.


Excuse me, but what's the connection?

Oh, boy. I'm talking psychology and everyone else is now talking philosophy! Did I miss something?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

OR "song" by Smeg and the Heads


If we're going this far off topic, why do it by half....

Brian - that was an EXCELLENT post on psycholoigy

When I keep asking: "Where are the psychologists and psychiatrists for 9/11 Truth?" I mean where is the website with a distinguished and growing number of active members --- a la Architects and Engineers - Pilots - Firefighters etc.?

Any idea where they are?

One or two or three persons can't be expected to "cover the bases" for the entire field of psychology.

WTC 7 Steel Supports Waited


NIST didn't admit free fall with an intact structure in the final draft of WTC 7. NIST admitted free fall for 2.25 seconds AFTER the buckling of the supports.

Remember, NIST cleverly divides the collapse of WTC 7 into three parts. The second part is where NIST affirms free fall.

I commented on this several months ago, but no one seemed to pay attention to it. Maybe someone can find my comment and reprint it.

Allow me to say, however, that NIST was too clearer by half. Even allowing for NIST"s "three stages of collapse scenario", that scenario still doesn't make sense. Steel supports don't wait for the last support to buckle before they too buckle!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

NIST's "three stage collapse" is beyond absurd

The only way it works is for a fleet of helicoptors with cables holding up the top of the building and "waiting" for the structure below to collapse.

You see that. I see that.

How come EVERYONE doesn't see that?

Psychology. They are still disoriented from the shock and awe.

That why we need a website: "Psychiatrists and Psychologists for 911 Truth."

Positive Psychological Mindset II


after a lot of study, then I saw the truth. Before one sees the truth on WTC 1, 2 & 7, one not only has to wade through Truth Movement literature, but also the opposition's literature. One may have to repeat this process many times before one is sure that 9/11 Truth is actually telling the truth! By then, many will simply drop out of the learning process...too time consuming; too many variables. That is where PPM (Positive Psychological Mindset) comes in to play perfectly. When you offer the novice to 9/11 Truth verifiable items that are found in mainstream sources, then that novice has no doubts that the Truth Movement is indeed a Truth Movement, and the novice will then research the WTC from the perspective that the towers and WTC 7 were brought down by explosives. Also, if they read NIST and Popular Mechanics, it will be from the perspective that they are lying!

Shock and Awe only explains one's denial of the truth in a limited way. After a year or so the Shock and Awe period is over. The reticence of many to accept 9/11 Truth some nine years after 9/11 is our fault. We in the Truth Movement make it difficult for many to come to terms with 9/11.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC


Why do we always have to rely on the experts before we become credible. I'm not saying to throw them out, but to understand that if we are alive we are all capable of understanding the human condition.
Our early conditioning began with .... Our parents knew best, the schools, the church, the government and all of the societies rules. No! We can reclaim our intrinsic right to know for ourselves and to entirely trust that. I have not been helped in my life by these so-called experts! As we learn more about ourselves, the whole world opens up to us. Somebody may happen to have a degree or license and help, but really, to me, any small thing can help us if we are ready.
I hope that helps!!

Did you see this post of mine on this thread?

Just LOOK at the buildings
The towers are exploding.

7 is coming straight down in a perfect controlled demolition.

Just LOOK at the videos.

Just LOOK.




Stop relying on others with more letters after their name than you may have.


More about Fort Belvoir and 9/11

Another excellent piece of research, Kevin.

I found the mention of Fort Belvoir interesting. In case you weren't already aware of it, Fort Belvoir was one of several Army bases in the Washington area that increased its security shortly before 9/11 (on September 4). It was also holding a training exercise the morning of 9/11, to "test the security at the base in case of a terrorist attack." Check out these 9/11 Timeline entries for details:

Also, the 12th Aviation Battallion, which had numerous helicopters available, was based at Fort Belvoir, but its members were far away from there, undertaking weapons training, at the time of the 9/11 attacks. This would have meant they were unable to help defend the airspace over Washington and the Pentagon. See these 9/11 Timeline entries:

If Corley wanted to..

he could easily obtain his own samples. I think you should invite him to a lab with all the necessary equipment. He can perform the tests right there, on camera, as we watch on. Why wouldn't he? What is he afraid of? if everything is as he says, he should have nothing to fear.

Broken Link:
He Kevin, for your edification, this link did not work: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_june2305.htm

Not only is that video missing, but has anyone seen the WTC7 computer simulation NIST created on their website recently? I have looked for it on there, done searches, but to avail, I can't find it. Did they take it down? Only place I can find is on youtube now. I like to use just much as showing wtc7 itself. Not only does wtc7 look like a CD from the onset to people, but watching how far off NIST's model was to the real thing really makes them go hmmmmmm...

peace all

Thanks so much Kevin for ALL your hard work. Not to nudge you along or anything, but I think you should publish your 4 essays on the WTC Access and other related work together in one book.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
“The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.” --Winston Churchill

Great idea............

Corley and Ryan working together.
I'd love to see the video!

And, yes, a book from Kevin would be a prize!

Thanks Kevin - great work as usual

Your meticulous investigative skills shine once again - congrats to you for another incisive effort, all part of the larger effort at seeking accountability and justice!

Kevin does a great job..................

of following the very complicated connections between people involved in the NIST coverups and people involved in 9/11 in general.
This seems to be an area in which far more work has to be done.
Mostly, though, it is information that should be spelled out, in detail but easily readable for people like me, in a book.
I'd love to see a book by Kevin Ryan, maybe working with others, with all of these connections and sinister coverups.

excellent article

Thank you, Kevin. I've been wondering how they would deal with the nano-thermite research, and the outlines of their strategy now seem to be emerging. They tried ignoring the research, and now they are moving to the next stage, with Corley as leader. It's important that we keep on top of this, so thank you once again for your first rate work.

Speaking of a book....

The last two Graeme MacQueen lectures are crying out to be published in book form:

" The Connection between 9/11, Anthrax, and Iraq"
"The Fictional Basis of the War on Terror"

(Canadian publisher, Trafford Publishing, will oblige your efforts if that's the problem. They can get you on Amazon at the very least.

I don't get it. Corely, according to the sampler, didn't seem to have the means to test any dust that he was asking for. His motives are beneath contempt.

We need to submit dust samples to truly scientific institutions for corroboration, Scandavia, Europe, etc. Has anyone tested the dust samples in the last year? I thought an announcement by another party was forthcoming.

A Book... ...you are right.

I would like to see a multi-authored, multi-contributor "coffee table" book with many, many photographs and also a DVD.
The multi-authored contributors concept helps to highlight the credibility, and to also promote the book. (Firefighters, Scientists, Theologian, Architects, Engineers, Family Members, Witnesses, political figures, etc.)

I think that it would be a great idea

The title should be innocuous. Something like " 9/11 in Review" or "9/11What we have Learned"

For the Cover

Seven's Tidy Rubble Pile

Excellent choice...



I like this one ...

Makes for a dramatic cover ...

This picture should

be titled........................... GOT BRAINS? This gives a new meaning to the US falling behind on education.


Kevin, great work! However, what does this mean? : "He said the reason your tests are not definitive is that virtually all the elements were present in the WTC and various element bondings may have occurred. (By the way he is the third chemist I know of who has said this.)"

Is that a weak point of the paper?

Just LOOK at the buildings

The towers are exploding.

7 is coming straight down in a perfect controlled demolition.

Just LOOK at the videos.

Just LOOK.




Stop relying on others with more letters after their name than you may have.


WARNING! Bad language and controversial ideas!



Kevin, great work! However, what does this mean? : "He said the reason your tests are not definitive is that virtually all the elements were present in the WTC and various element bondings may have occurred. (By the way he is the third chemist I know of who has said this.)"

Is that a weak point of the paper?

Thanks for the comments

I'm surprised that no one has said anything about some of the new references, but maybe it's just me.

"Element bondings" is not a phrase chemists use. But where would we start with the idea that just these particular elements found in the WTC buildings disassociated from the compounds in which they were stable and somehow formed new and interesting things other than what the analyses indicate? Since there was aluminum and some rainy days, why could we not get a few cans of beer? And with the silicon and oxygen, perhaps a sandy beach. There are numerous possiilities for that carbon-based susbstance in the intimately-mixed, microsphere forming energetic material. So why not something edible, like the mixins for a spicy pizza? We would need to let it levin first, of course.

Great humor!


Beer and pizza on the

Beer and pizza on the beach... Guess you had a great Memorial Day weekend.

"The answer could be as simple ... as acid rain."

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." ~ Orwell, 1984


The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel

There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity.

"The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain."

Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says.

From a building-safety point of view, the critical question is: Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson. "To answer that, we would need to recreate those fires in the FPE labs, and burn fresh steel of known composition for the right time period, with the right environment." He hopes to have the opportunity to collaborate on thermodynamically controlled studies, and to observe the effects of adding sulfur, copper and other elements. The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity.

The FEMA report calls for further metallurgic investigations, and Barnett, Biederman and Sisson hope that WPI will obtain NIST funding and access to more samples. They are continuing their microscopic studies on the samples prepared by graduate student Jeremy Bernier and Marco Fontecchio, the 2001–02 Helen E. Stoddard Materials Science and Engineering Fellow. (Next year's Stoddard Fellow, Erin Sullivan, will take up this work as part of her graduate studies.) Publication of their results may clear up some mysteries that have confounded the scientific community.

Niels Haritt addressed this, too

"Imagine you made a campfire and you add sulfur, wood, phoshor and a bonding component. Would you expect to get a box of matchsticks later in the ash?"


so-called "intellectuals" and academicians remain uninvolved and silenced. these truly are the times that try mens (and women's) souls. how lacking are most.... but the good part is that this makes the real heros shine like suns in the sky. richard gage, kevin ryan and others will live in history and if not in history in the minds and hearts of honest folks everywhere! thanks for more necessary and painstaking work. this is wonderful

So this is an unlikley

So this is an unlikley scenario then? I just want to understand it.


I'm not a scientist, but if my memory serves, some of the trace substances found in the WTC dust would also be found in the composition of gypsum which is used in plasterboard which was used in the walls of the buildings. So to counter this disturbing finding (disturbing for people who did their homework), some "brilliant" minds have tried to poo-poo the finding by saying "That substance was in the wallboard." I'm sure Professor Jones and Kevin Ryan can give you the exact explanation as to why that is just not a viable explanation.


Gypsum is composed of calcium sulfate dihydrate, it is not elemental sulfur. The gypsum would have had to break down into it's chemical constituents and then formed a eutectic in the steel.

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel."
An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7

Steven Jones did address during a previous discussion:

"I (with colleagues) have done the experiment with thermite + sulfur (often called "thermate") acting on a piece of WTC steel. In fact, I did the experiment with BBC filming it! Then we looked at the steel, including use of electron microscopy, and found the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al. in WTC 7 steel. OTOH, I know of no expt done to test whether gypsum and heat would have this effect -- I would be VERY surprised, as the sulfur in gypsum is not elemental Sulfur, but is bound as a sulfate (very difficult to reduce to suflur.) We should do the latter experiment to rule out such nonsense. If you can provide direct quotes from the BBC program on this point, it may prove useful in a research note on the subject."

It takes a rather involved industrial process to reduce gypsum to sulfur. If this could have happened in the debris pile, then why are there patents issued for such a process? If you would like to read about that process you can do that here:

- http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6024932.html -
- http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6024932/description.html -

Now, do you really think that could have happened in the debris pile? :)

That Was A Mouthful


after reading your comment, it's a wonder that persons in the truth movement think that the WTC demolitions is the best way to approach novices to the movement! Whew!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Dan777, yes the scenario is virtually impossible

You asked about... "...that virtually all the elements were present in the WTC and various element bondings may have occurred.
Dan777, In order to understand it, read up on some chemistry.
Forming new chemical compounds from elements has prescribed laws and specific reactions (google "bonding & forming chemical compounds"). An accidental mixture of rust and aluminum and silica to form nano-thermitic material is an incredibly silly notion. If you wanted to embarrass one of these debunkers, have them do experiments where they mix building parts in order to "accidently" form thermitic material. They could do this experiment for a million years and would still be stirring wallboard and a piece of rusty steel and an aluminum frame in a pot above a kerosene flame.

Thanks for the clarification

Thanks for the clarification guys. Very helpful! :-)

Physics Paper


Sorry to blow trumpets about some work I've been involved with, but this paper was supposed to be being peer reviewed by the Journal of 9-11 studies, submitted and supported by Toni Szamboti, So far it's had one gruff response from David Chandler I think, which resulted in some minor changes and the paper was re submitted, I think it's getting on for 6 months could be longer since anything has happened. Two editors of the journal thought a peer review was worthwhile.

This paper was described by the user 'Newton' on the 9-11 Forum as 'truther ju-jitsu'.

OK Now that's the sell! you can download it from here.


It uses Bazant's (and as Seffen's work is based on Bazant's, Seffen's too) to show that the collapse can't be a collapse, it must be a demolition. The original idea was to show Empirically that WTC 1's destruction was due to demolition, (and this is still possible IMO with some further work on typical behaviours of other known demolitions of high rise steel structures as a control). Though this paper may not have achieved that, it clearly demonstrates using the Bazant's own theory for the collapse, which given his credentials, must be a valid theory, that the characteristics of a natural collapse that any structural engineer would expect to be observable in WTC 1 are not observed.

Any theory tested by experiment and observation that fails to predict the observation is an incorrect theory. Therefore this 'leading' expert has not only failed to predict the observation, but has failed to test his theory using the first and most basic principals of the Scientific Method, His paper is published in a peer reviewed journal and the peer review also failed this most primitive test for the validity any Scientific (Engineering) Theory, which is very odd, theories must always be tested against observations or tested by experiment. ( These are first principles of the Scientific Method taught from the very first Science class you attend)

The best theory for the collapse that comes from some would say THE leading expert on this sort of thing (at least that's how the 'opposition' present him) does not fit the observed behaviour of the structure and in fact Bazant's theory predicts nothing that is observed in the data,

I know the physics phd, 2 architects and engineer who helped write this paper. We decided after being encouraged by some here, to try to publish anonymously because it was thought that this would focus criticism of the paper on the science and not the perceived authority of doers of the science.

If any from AE911Truth or ANYONE at all wants to comment, review, co-author, plagerise the paper please do, we will be happy to co-operate in the work towards an Empirical understanding of these demolitions.


A team of Nobodys.

Major debunkng

All of this suggests that there is a major debunking campaign around the "energetic materials" claim being orchestrated for the 10th anniversary. We may have more truth than they have, but they have MSM. OCT apologists are gonna try the squelch the nano-thermite story by casting enough doubt to keep the public focused on the OCT.

I hope everyone is planning for the future. It's gonna be a bumpy ride. One thing that might help us is if we can get the number of ae911t supporters up from 1,200 to 12,000 by this time next year.

This is not an evidence war we are fighting but a propaganda war.

A psychological war

I would characterize this as more of a psychological "war," buttressed by propoganda;

But surely you are correct in sayingi it is NOT an evidence war.

No way, no how.

Why are the psychologists and psychiatrists standing aside? Are they too comfortable making too much money?

Or are they just as terrorized as the general population?

Phone Call to Gene Corley

I called Gene Corley to ask him a few questions after reading Kevin Ryan's article.

Phone call to Gene Corley 06/01/10


Good job!


Please do not give Gene Corley any 9/11 dust samples

You'll just be giving him another cheap excuse to lie again.

My blog entry on this (german language)

Go Kevin! I support the idea of writing a book about your struggle, as you know!

10th anniverary book!

a book wit various authors with a dvd in the back is a great idea. I wonder if such a thing is possible before the 10th anniversary.


I've only read down to the part about Corley posing as a reporter. The footnote xvi is now displaying an error message. Seems the page no longer exists. I guess it's possible to be a fly on even virtual walls... It would be great to find that page and then grab it and save it somewhere safe.

Someone called Corley today

...and recorded the conversation.


Corley admits he has been working through Jay Levin to obtain WTC dust or red-gray chip samples from the independent investigarors (for whatever reason). If I heard him right he also says he fully supports the (ever-changing) official reports, that there is no mystery with regard to WTC7, that it was molten aluminum coming from WTC2, and that no one saw molten metal otherwise. He says those of us questioning what happened are completely ignoring physical facts.

To reiterate, Gene Corley was the voice of the official WTC story for years. But with regard to any future testing, his ability to be objective is clear from this conversation alone.

Deepwater Horizon and Molten Aluminum

It's my understanding that the platform of the Deepwater Horizon (now very deep) was almost entirely fabricated from aluminum, to prevent sparks that might ignite and explode when exposed to crude oil and gases such as methane. The Deepwater Horizon platform was engulfed by flames for two days before it eventually sunk into the water, without melting the bulk of the aluminum platform structure.

Here is a clear case where aluminum meets a petroleum fire head-on, and holds up fairly well. So much for 'molten aluminum coming from WTC2', Mr. Corley.

Check out the photos:

Steel or Aluminum?


I read where the rig was built with 35,000 tons of steel?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Verification Needed

I posted a link to the best photos I could find of the platform, after hearing that much of it was aluminum. I'll keep looking for better information, perhaps your source refers to the steel substructure, the aluminum being a surface cladding only. The photos show two distinct metals above the water level.

*Bump* AUDIO posted by Kevin Ryan

Good questioning phone call.

Molten Aluminum and Blackbody Radiation

Glaring Proof of Something Hotter than an Office Fire in WTC2

I sent this challenge to W. Gene Corley, NIST's John Gross and Shyam Sunder:

I challenge anybody to reproduce the recorded phenomenon of brightly glowing molten metal (or any other material exhibiting a similar appearance) using only materials and conditions reasonably present in World Trade Center Building 2 (WTC2) without assuming the presence of some intentionally placed pyrotechnic material such as thermate.

No response was forthcoming.

Bullet proof

The nanothermite paper is pretty much bullet proof. Credible objections to the paper can only be made in the scientific literature, and the eerie silence is evidence, in a way, that the paper was successful. If they say that fly ash has the same characteristics as the four samples of WTC dust, they must demonstrate it. Otherwise, there is nothing to fear from such an off-the-cuff remark.

However, on other aspects of the WTC collapses, work needs to be done. I think it should not be said that office fires don't soften steel. There are many examples where a fire has softened steel to the point of collapse. This of course does not mean that that is what happened in the World Trade Center towers. I think it is better to say, "Yes, steel softens to the point of collapse in some fires, but this would not be the case for the World Trade Center for the following reasons:" etc. The same may be said for global collapse. Global collapse does exist. It has happened in some structures. Why is the World Trade Center different? Why was it not possible for global collapse to have occurred in the World Trade Center towers? I think a study of what global collapse entails, and how such events differed from the WTC collapses, might shed light on the issue. Some people take issue with the term "collapse," but one can differentiate between an "assisted collapse" and an "unassisted collapse." Assisted collapse = controlled demolition.

Of course we have so many eyewitness accounts of explosions causing the collapse of the twin towers that it would seem unnecessary to go into the dynamical details, but at the same time, these details should also be consistent with an explosive destruction of the buildings.

There are many evidences of demolition that have yet to be explored. The scientific literature should be filled with these, but for some reason it is not.

Corley and the WTC2 Core

What about Corley and his identification in the video of WTC2 core remaining standing? I have a few questions about that and whether this is evidence of thermate/thermite working.

1. How could the core remain after the top of WTC2 passes by?
2. How could the hat truss disconnect from the exterior columns (well above the impact and fires) and allow the exterior to leave the core standing?
3. After the core remains, what takes it down?
4. What happened to the core? We don't see it piled up?

A concern of mine

"When my colleague Steven Jones sent a sample of the red-gray chips to my post office box in late April 2009, the samples had been removed from the double envelope package through a series of slits just barely big enough to slide the small vial out. The postal inspector never responded to my complaint. But when I later mailed something to my colleague James Gourley, the envelope arrived with a corner ripped out, in a gross kind of damage that neither of us had ever seen."

Isn't tampering or stealing mail a federal offense? Could the matter be reported to anyone else?

How many of these red/grey chips are still extant, or what is your best estimate? These bilayered chips are our best and most direct evidence for making our case. They should be treated with the utmost care, like R2D2 in Star Wars.

Perhaps we should all start sending dust to one-another

Perhaps we should all start sending dust to one-another. Either they will give up on trying to intercept suspected items or they will clearly tip their hand.

Or just arrest you

while suspending Habeus Corpus, and then trump the whole thing up under the guise of an anthrax or ricin scare perpetrated by the 9/11 "truthers" and let Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly run with it from there..

This probably means that

This probably means that people who are the real perpetrators of the murder of mass of September 11 2001 are worried. Nevertheless I believe that they are very well protected by the current President of the United States, Barack Obama, which prohibits, for example, a new investigation into the anthrax attacks despite evidence showing that the conclusions of FBI are false. Here are some excerpts from the link entitled "2001 anthrax attacks":



“Doubts about FBI conclusions

After the FBI announced that Ivins acted alone, many people with a broad range of political views, some of whom were colleagues of Ivins, expressed their doubts.[Reasons cited for these doubts include that Ivins was only one of 100 people who could have worked with the vial used in the attacks,[and that the FBI was unable either to find any anthrax spores at Ivins' house or on his other belongings nor place him near the New Jersey mailbox from which the anthrax was mailed.

Alternative theories proposed include FBI incompetence, that Syria or Iraq directed the attacks, or that similar to some 9/11 conspiracy theories the U.S. government knew in advance that the attacks would occur. Senator Patrick Leahy who is Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and who had received an anthrax-tainted letter, said the FBI has not produced convincing evidence in the case.[The Washington Post called for an independent investigation in the case saying that reporters and scientists were poking holes in the case. On September 17, 2008, Sen. Patrick Leahy told FBI Director Robert Mueller during testimony before his the Judiciary Committee Leahy chairs, that he did not believe Army scientist Bruce Ivins acted alone in the 2001 anthrax attacks, stating: "I believe there are others involved, either as accessories before or accessories after the fact. I believe that there are others out there. I believe there are others who could be charged with murder." To the contrary, Tom Daschle, the other democratic senator targeted, believes Ivins was the sole culprit. Although the FBI matched the genetic origin of the spores to the RMR-1029 culture in Ivins' flask, scientists say the spores have a chemical "fingerprint" that did not match the strain from the flask. The implication is that the spores had been taken out of the flask and grown somewhere else after the culture was created in 1997.

Silicon content too high

The anthrax used in the attacks had silicon, according to the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. The presence of the silicon is the reason why, when the letters to Senators Leahy and Daschle were opened, the anthrax vaporized into an aerosol.

Dr. Richard O. Spertzel, a microbiologist who led the United Nations’ biological weapons inspections of Iraq, wrote that the anthrax used could not have come from the lab where Ivins worked.[ Spertzel said he remained skeptical of the Bureau’s argument despite the new evidence presented on August 18, 2008 in an unusual FBI briefing for reporters. He questioned the FBI's claim that the powder was less than military grade, in part because of the presence of high levels of silica. The FBI had been unable to reproduce the attack spores with the high levels of silica. The FBI attributed the presence of high silica levels to "natural variability."However, this conclusion of the FBI contradicted its statements at an earlier point in the investigation, when the FBI had stated, based on the silicon content, that the anthrax was "weaponized," a step that made the powder more airy and required special scientific know-how.

The FBI lab concluded that 1.4% of the powder in the Leahy letter was silicon. Stuart Jacobson, a small-particle chemistry expert stated that: "This is a shockingly high proportion [of silicon]. It is a number one would expect from the deliberate weaponization of anthrax, but not from any conceivable accidental contamination."

The FBI attempted to defend its conclusion and contracted scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Labs to conduct experiments in which anthrax is accidentally absorbed from a media heavily laced with silicon. The Livermore scientists tried 56 times to replicate the high silicon content, adding increasingly high amounts of silicon to the media. They were unable even to approach the 1.4% level of the actual attack anthrax, with most results an order of magnitude lower and some as low as .001%.

"If there is that much silicon, it had to have been added," stated Jeffrey Adamovicz, who supervised Ivins's work at Fort Detrick.[Adamovicz explained that the silicon in the attack anthrax could have been added via a large fermentor, which Battelle and some other facilities use" but "we did not use a fermentor to grow anthrax at USAMRIID . . . [and] We did not have the capability to add silicon compounds to anthrax spores." Dr. Ivins had neither the skills nor the means to attach silicon to anthrax spores. Richard Spertzel explained that the Fort Detrick facility did not handle anthrax in powdered form. "I don't think there's anyone there who would have the foggiest idea how to do it."

National Academy of Sciences investigation

A 16-member panel of the National Academy of Sciences has been reviewing the scientific work conducted as part of the F.B.I.'s investigation. Dr. Henry S. Heine, a microbiologist who was formerly employed at the Army’s biodefense laboratory in Maryland where Dr. Ivins had worked, told the panel that it was impossible that the deadly spores had been produced undetected in Dr. Ivins’s laboratory, as maintained by the F.B.I. He testified that using the equipment at the army lab, at least a year of intensive work would have been required to produce the quantity of spores contained in the letters, and that such an intensive effort could not have escaped the attention of colleagues. Dr. Heine also told the panel that lab technicians who worked closely with Dr. Ivins have told him they saw no such work. He stated further that where Dr. Ivins worked biological containment measures were inadequate to prevent the Anthrax spores from floating out of the laboratory into animal cages and offices. “You’d have had dead animals or dead people,” Dr. Heine said.

Also: “Colleague Disputes Case Against Anthrax Suspect”



“Asked by reporters after his testimony whether he believed that there was any chance that Dr. Ivins, who committed suicide in 2008, had carried out the attacks, the microbiologist, Henry S. Heine, replied, “Absolutely not.” At the Army’s biodefense laboratory in Maryland, where Dr. Ivins and Dr. Heine worked, he said, “among the senior scientists, no one believes it.”

President Obama opposes new independent investigation

Congressman Rush Holt, whose district in NJ includes a mailbox from which anthrax letters are believed to have been mailed, was troubled by a number of important questions about the anthrax attacks and the FBI's investigation of it that remain unanswered, and has called for an investigation of the anthrax attacks by Congress or by an independent commission he proposed in a bill entitled the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act (H.R. 1248)[ Other members of Congress have also called for an independent investigation.

President Barack Obama, however, opposes such investigations and such legislation on the ground that they may "undermine public confidence" in the FBI probe and would probably veto a bill that contained an investigation provision.”

I fear that President Obama will also protect the official version of events of September 11, 2001, even if it is false, and that he will prevent a new investigation on the reasons of the collapse of buildings World Trade Center that could prove that the official version is false. I do not see how it could be countered the opposition of U.S. President to a new investigation.

New Idea

As an attorney, people having been asking me for years to come up with an idea to sue someone. I politely tell them this would be a complete waste of time. Well I may have figured a way to get this into court or ... at least slam Corley, whom I despise.

I could find a platform to deride him, ridicule him and accuse him of deliberate complicity in a treasonous crime and then ..... dare him to sue me for defamation. And then heckle him endlessly for his failure to sue me. And if he were to sue me, then I could get him in a court of law, get access to evidence, and cross-examine that poor excuse for a human being. And moreover, put his theories and findings on trial. In a court of law, I could tear the Official Story to pieces.

Now that idea for getting into court, or have fun trying, I'll definitely have to consider.

That is a cool idea!

It sure sounds like fun.


That sounds a lot like what the writer Emile Zola did to get the Dreyfus case reopened in the 1890s. By publishing his accusations of a cover-up in a major paper, that led the French government to sue him for libel, and the courts decided it was impossible to arrive at a verdict in that case without reopening the case that was the bone of contention, namely the Dreyfus Affair.

Why don't things work that way anymore? A huge part of the explanation is the consolidation of news media, which are the propaganda arm of the owning class and will ignore statements, even from those whose views on other topics they have previously printed (Paul Craig Roberts, for example), if those statements go against elite interests and the ideologies that sustain them.

There's also the example of E. Howard Hunt suing a publication for insinuating his involvement in the JFK assassination. That lawsuit resulted in testimony which Mark Lane was then able to use to write 'Plausible Denial.' Hunt's old friends at the CIA would probably have preferred he hadn't sued.

Of course, that lawsuit and Lane's subsequent book were nearly thirty years after the event itself. We want something much sooner than that.

" Stephen Lemons, The Yoda of

" Stephen Lemons, The Yoda of 9/11: Pat Curley slices through the loony conspiracy theories at his influential "Screw Loose Change" Web site, Phoenix New Times, Aug 9 2007, http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-08-09/news/the-yoda-of-9-11/1"

Mr. Lemon's conveniently glosses over the fact Pat aka Brainless used much of his blog to propagate attacks by Larouche Cultists, Holocaust deniers, internet stalkers and various other Right-wing nutters over the last 4 years. To be fair--only for the exercise--when he started out he looked like he sincerely had a problem with "Loose Change" in the way a rabid fan of Bush couldn't stand to hear bad things said about his hero. But in less than a year it was clear Pat took his cues from the worst of the very people he was supposed to be "exposing".

Two glaring omissions from Screw Lucy that remain to this day: Neither Pat nor James have seriously covered Killtown's harassment of Val McClatchey. New information has come to light that friends of Pat knew who 'Killtown" was all along, ergo Pat had to know as well. In essence, Pat was protecting "Killtown" from the consequences of going after Mcclatchey.
The other glaring omission from a blog supposed to be about "exposing those nasty twoofers": the harassment of Canadian actor Mark Humphrey as "the Harley Guy". The Mark Humphrey issue was so massive in 2009 it was directly responsible for the implosion of Killtown's website, another newsworthy item never covered by SLC.

Whatever Pat is--besides a raving right-wing nutter--the primary purpose of his blog is not informative. The primary purpose of his blog is to enable the idea Holocaust deniers, cultists and and racists are what the 911 truth movement is about, whilst at the same time protecting that minority in 911truth from serious scrutiny.

"Screw Loose Change" is a fraud and should be taken as seriously as FOX news.

Very interesting Kevin.

The collusion between media and the perps is reprehensible. I am making reference to Levin.

Apparently Corley has been the go to guy to add credibility to coverups for a while.

Thanks for all you do.


with each passing day the media sinks to ever lower depths of brazen lying and outright stupidity in its incessant need to cover over the crimes of the elites. As more and more information keeps coming to light and more and more scientific applications become clarified, the more outrageously the media spins.

the wheels of justice

Great piece of fine grind Kevin.
You are to be thanked all over again. This guy pretending to be a reporter. how lame is that ! Did he wear a baseball hat and Harley shirt and know a whole lot about airplane impact and fuel fires?
listening to the audio question/answer you always wonder who that was asking the really dumb questions.

I'm sorry if my questions

I'm sorry if my questions were dumb remo! What would you have asked Corley?

The questioning approach was gracefully appropriate.

Remo, I thought the questioning approach was excellent. It was graceful and civil.
People like Corley would hang up and shut-down on most interviewers.
It takes skill to keep someone like Corley on the line.

Remo, If you have better skills to keep an interview going... then you go do it with a radio show or some individual, and record it for us all to hear.

A voice of reason, thank you!

A voice of reason, thank you!