Radio interview on 22 April 2013, challenging the official 9/11 narrative

Two weeks ago, I spoke on a radio show regarding 9/11 – providing evidence that strongly challenges the official 9/11 narrative. Perhaps a quick outline of topics discussed/prepared for will be helpful – note that I spoke about much more than the WTC demolitions. I think this is important. (Summary of main points; not necessarily in the order followed on the radio show.)

0. Define the official narrative: A – There is no cover-up of 9/11 facts by gov't”; B-”the evil of that day was ONLY by Al Qaeda; there were no explosives in WTC towers or WTC7.” The radio interviewer and his studio guest Martin Tanner declared their support of the official story at the beginning.

1. Gov't cover-up/lies about the WTC dust danger: "WASHINGTON (AP) -- At the White House's direction, the Environmental Protection Agency gave New Yorkers misleading assurances that there was no health risk from the debris-laden air after the World Trade Center collapse, according to an internal inquiry.
"The White House "convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones" by having the National Security Council control EPA communications after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, according to a report issued late Thursday by EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley.
"In all, the EPA issued five news releases within 10 days of the attacks and four more by the end of 2001 reassuring the public about air quality. [Soon,] respiratory ailments and other problems began to surface in hundreds of workers cleaning dusty offices and apartments. [Scientists had measured the pH of the dust at about 12, which is roughly equivalent to liquid Drano. The dust was also laden with asbestos fibers.]
"The day after the attacks, former EPA Deputy Administrator Linda Fisher's chief of staff e-mailed senior EPA officials to say that "all statements to the media should be cleared" first by the National Security Council, which is Bush's main forum for discussing national security and foreign policy matters with his senior aides and Cabinet, the inspector general's report says.” By JOHN HEILPRIN, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, August 23, 2003

No lying or cover-ups? What happened to people who trusted the government, that the WTC dust was benign when it was not? And what happened to whistleblower Nikki Tinsley? She told what happened as EPA Inspector General - she was forced to resign. (The radio interviewer guessed correctly.)

(Less detail on following points; readily searchable)
2 – Lack of air defenses that day. Testimony of Sec'y of Transportation Norman Mineta. Why was Mineta forced to resign following his (whistleblower?) testimony? Why were there no warnings to people in the Pentagon to evacuate as the plane neared (April Gallop testimony)?

3. Testimony of Barry Jennings regarding explosions in WTC7 – before either Tower came down. He and colleague could not get down past 6th floor due to huge explosion. Rescued. Testified. Jennings was murdered a few days before NIST report on WTC7 came out. NIST is a government laboratory, under the Department of Commerce.

4. Over 99.5% of WTC steel was quickly shipped to Asia for melting down – evidence from a crime scene was destroyed! Done contrary to objections by engineers and scientists.

5. Samples of the WTC7 steel and Towers steel showed high-temperature oxidation and sulfidation. Our scientific team was denied the scientific courtesy of inspecting these samples - we did ask.

6. NIST did not comment on these steel samples; admits did not look at any WTC7 steel for their report; nor did NIST look for explosive residues in the WTC dust. (We did.) NIST used computer models for both Towers and WTC7 – independent scientists and engineers are not allowed to flex the model, despite repeated requests.

7. FEMA report 7 – “our best hypothesis [fire] has only a low probability of occurrence” – agreed! NIST stated regarding the Towers' fall: “we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.” See "Fourteen Points" paper: I emphasized the observed fact that WTC7 dropped at free-fall acceleration for over 100 feet, meaning that nothing was in the path to impede free-fall acceleration for that distance. This fact was finally admitted to by NIST in their final report – but only after they had been publicly corrected by physicist David Chandler and me in August 2008.

8. Red/gray chips study – especially important were Differential Scanning Calorimeter tests we did which showed iron-rich sphere formation in the residue. As did hitting material with an oxyacetylene torch. Millette did not report ignition studies at all.

9. Highly suspicious put options in the days before 9/11, on United and American airlines in particular. Billions (estimated) were made on these trades as the 9/11 tragedy ensued. 9/11 Commission comment as a footnote on p. 499 admitted suspicious trades, but said there were NO conceivable ties to Al Qaeda so that trades were “innocuous.” We discussed implications of this admission.

10. – good source of info, over 1800 AE and over 16,000 others have signed petition for real investigation. See also my website – google “dr byu”, youtube oz steven jones 911, journal911studies.

It became clear that Mr. Tanner was called in to debate me, and he interrupted me frequently and rudely. He had prepared arguments from debunker sites regarding the fall of the Towers in particular. He tried to argue that several other high-rise (over 8 stories) steel-frame buildings had fallen due to fires, but when I pointed out that in none of his examples was the collapse total – as observed for the WTC Towers – he could hardly counter. I noted that even NIST admitted they could not fully explain the total collapse of the Towers. (See point 7 above.)

He was clearly unprepared to discuss the government's reassuring lies regarding the WTC dust (which was in fact highly toxic), or the testimony by Barry Jennings who witnessed large explosions in WTC7 even before the Towers fell. In general, I think it wise to include such arguments that go beyond just considering the destruction of the Towers and WTC7.

At the end, the radio host and even Mr. Tanner agreed that a re-investigation of 9/11 was needed.

Prof Jones

Excellent points. Is there an audio link to the interview?

My understanding is that NIST acknowledged that no other steel frame high rise had ever totally collapsed from fire, correct?



that is my understanding also. Perhaps someone has the exact reference from NIST material (?) The "Fourteen Points" paper referenced in my blog above on page 39 provides two quotes to this effect from other sources.

I will see if I can find that audio link for you. I am not sure I handled the rude interruptions very well; that was a particular challenge for me as a scientist (I'm not a debater really).

I found that when I discussed Barry Jennings' testimony regarding WTC7 and Nikki Tinsely's whistleblower report, the debater had little to say and interrupted me less. My point is that there are salient points that we need to make, in addition to the physics/engineering analyses (as important as these are to many people).

NIST, Final Report, xxxi

"This is the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires."

Graeme MacQueen notes this quotation in his presentation on the "Foreknowledge of Bldg 7's Collapse": (watch at the 30:00 mark, rec. whole presentation )

That's the quote -- thanks,

AConfederacyofDunces. ""This is the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires." And I found the NIST reference:

Thanks for catching the typo, rm -- I corrected it.

Here is the link

to the audio of the radio program:,%20MARTIN%20TANNER%203%20HRS...

Note that this is nearly three hours long. The discussion regarding Barry Jennings occurs about half way through.

Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire

Yes, here is NIST's confirmation that, except for on 9/11, modern steel-framed highrises, built to code, do not collapse from fire.


Thanks for pulling this up. Very informative.

Correct date?

Since the radio appearance was 'two weeks ago,' would the correct date be 22 April, and not 22May as it now appears?

"Jennings was murdered"?

I know the circumstances of Barry Jennings' death are suspicious, but I've yet to see any proof that he was murdered. If anyone has found evidence to substantiate that claim, please share.

Thank you, I stand corrected regarding Barry Jennings' passing

Hope this clarifies what we know.
"The cause of Jennings' death has not been made public, and a private investigator hired by Avery to discover the cause and circumstances surrounding his death refused to proceed with his investigation. In spite of the significance of Jennings' position with NYC on 9/11 and his controversial eyewitness testimony regarding the collapse of WTC7, the media has not investigated or reported on his death, nor reported on his statements."

Wouldn't it be nice to get answers to questions like these? but who will investigate?

Serial Numbers

One of the callers demanded to know the "serial numbers" from the steel that WPI analyzed. He wanted to know what floor they came from.

The samples that WPI analyzed, (FEMA 403, Appendix C), came from WTC7 (sample #1) and one of the WTC Towers (sample #2).

The WTC7 sample was from a beam. If there were any markings on it, FEMA did not document them. I can find no records showing that they even took basic measurements before they hacked off the damaged end and transported the sample. FEMA created a log (FEMA 403, Appendix D) of the steel they observed in the scrap yards. They usually spray painted a number and SAVE on the piece. Sometimes they took multiple photos or videos of the same piece. But guess what? The WTC7 beam is missing from the FEMA 403 Appendix D and there was no attempt to photographically connect the beam to the sample. Hmmm.......

Understand that there were many high quality photos of the beam. Only recently were we able to confirm that the larger piece was related to sample #1.

Sample #2 was removed from an exterior column from one of the towers. It was documented in Appendix D, measured carefully and photographed extensively. NIST took the larger column to its campus in MD and called it K-16. They did separate analyses on samples taken from near where Sample #2 was removed as well as undamaged areas.

One of the researchers who helped WPI with an analysis of samples had never seen the larger pieces or even photos of them. When I inquired about the temperatures claimed (940C) he responded that this was from the jet fuel. Subsequent communications did not go well when he realized that it could not have been subjected to jet fuel if it was from the 52nd floor. Hmmm......

NIST wrote in their 1-3C report (page 229) (2005) that the column originated from the 52nd floor. But FEMA or WPI in 2002, could have easily determined the relative location just knowing the thickness of the web, flange and spandrel elements.

The point here is that neither piece could have been subjected to jet fuel, and even if they were, jet fuel could not do the damages that were called "the deepest mystery" by the New York Times.

Still today the analysts are maintaining that the severe corrosion and swiss cheese appearance could have been caused by sulfur from acid rain, drywall, plastic or rubber. But when you get down to asking about the high temperatures also necessary, oh boy, look out!

I appreciate your research on Sample #1 and Sample #2,

kawika. I would encourage you to write up what you have learned about these samples more formally. That is, write up and publish your findings if you would (e.g., in the Journal of 9/11 Studies). This is important work.

"NIST wrote in their 1-3C report (page 229) (2005) that the column originated from the 52nd floor. But FEMA or WPI in 2002, could have easily determined the relative location just knowing the thickness of the web, flange and spandrel elements.

The point here is that neither piece could have been subjected to jet fuel, and even if they were, jet fuel could not do the damages that were called "the deepest mystery" by the New York Times."

Correct. So how did the "high-temperature sulfidation" occur? This alone deserves a re-investigation. Note that Prof. Barnett at WPI declined to allow Dr. Jeffrey Farrer of BYU examine either Sample #1 or #2. Seems it would take an act of Congress to get these scientists to "open their books" and permit a serious investigation of the hard criminal evidence.

In process

We are in the process of assembling all available information. Thank you for the invitation.

Cole´s Experiments

It would be really interesting and helpful if you could include Cole´s experiments, and get that information into a paper. I am referring to his demonstrations that show that thermate can lead to the observed damage, and that crushed wall-board cannot. The mentioning of the observed spheres with sulfur would complement this information in a nice way.

How did the "high-temperature sulfidation" occur?

I am perplexed.

While researching the presence of elemental sulfur in drywall I see that it "...cannot survive combustion..."

So if it can't survive high temperatures, how does it contribute to erosion of steel?

Further, defective drywall contains a range of elemental sulfur between 8 mg/kg to 1900 mg/kg. Would the high end be capable of contributing to the steel erosion?

Further, the scientists involved in the analysis of the steel, suggested (and still maintain) that Chinese drywall possibly contributed the sulfur to the reaction. BIG PROBLEM---There was no Chinese drywall imported before 2001, so it could not possibly be to blame.

Here you are challenging Dr Barnett of WPI, who

suggested (IIRC) that the sulfur in wallboard somehow contributed to the "high-temperature sulfidation" of WTC steel.

His explanation appears to be nonsense to me, since the sulfur bound in calcium sulfate in gypsum wallboard will not react with even hot steel, I believe -- however, I would recommend an experimental test or tests -- with wallboard and steel placed together in a very hot test-oven environment for several hours, then days or even weeks. In this way, one can determine experimentally if they will react, resulting the observed high-temperature sulfidation of the steel. (High-temperature sulfidation and degradation was observed for WTC steel.) I highly doubt that there is enough "free sulfur" in the wallboard used in the WTC to allow for the observed high-temp sulfidation and corrosion.

I like experiments -- that's how a scientist may resolve questions like this (finally), rather than by an unsubstantiated opinion.

Professor Sisson

To be absolutely clear, it is Professor Barnett who recently maintained that the drywall could have been the source of sulfur. It was Professor Sisson who actually studied the erosion and concluded it was drywall that contributed sulfur.

Both Barnett and Sisson appeared in the BBC documentary The Third Tower. Barnett can be seen at mark ~48:00 and Sisson at ~48:40

Mark Basile

Professor Jones

Good to see that you still help to spread the word. Your reporting of evidence suggesting that there was molten metal at GZ got me interested in 9/11 truth, and your paper with Harrit really sealed the deal for me. The red chips make molten spheres and they could melt surrounding metal(beams fx), which means they basically explain the bulk of the molten metal at GZ. I have asked many people to explain what else but thermite in those chips could make those iron spheres, but no-one has been able to come up with a viable theory. Some people have suggested that the nano-scale of the iron could lower the melting-point, but when I explain that even if that were a viable explanation for the molten state it would still not explain the pure iron state of them - those same people are stumped.

The sad fact is that most people do not understand, and unfortunately this important result has been lost in the slandering of Bentham.

My point? - We cannot give up at this point. Some people still complain about Bentham, so lets give them more papers without Bentham. I spoke to Harrit at one of his lectures a couple of years ago and asked him about Basile. Lets get him published! I want to see the 911truth community help Basile to cover the cost for a really nice journal, and the open access option. I don´t know if ae911 should officially pay for it, but they can still help. Let them send an email to their followers to ask them to give some $$$. Lets set up an account for Basile. 911blogger could help.

I cannot emphasize enough how sobering it is for some people to realize that someone else has confirmed your result, but they do not act because they have an excuse: Basile has not published. Lets take away that excuse!

And for bonus points, lets ask Basile to include FTIR. I am sick and tired of hearing that excuse, but people to stick to it because it is a convenient excuse! - A lot of people really do not want to believe. I have seen a couple of different FTIR graphs from Kevin Ryan´s lecture in 2009. He had FTIR for red chips and some other material(also energetic if I remember correctly). The graph for the red chip was a pretty good match for superthermite by Gash et al. And obviously, Millette´s FTIR does not match, and I think we all know why that is. Of course, it would be nice to see Ryan publish that data also, but Basile would be perfect because he would repeat the ignition result as well.


You say "Samples of the WTC7 steel and Towers steel showed high-temperature oxidation and sulfidation. Our scientific team was denied the scientific courtesy of inspecting these samples - we did ask."

Has someone summed up the available evidence for molten metal and thermate in a reviewed paper? I mean in a main-stream journal? This sort of paper could also really help grab attention. And it would be really appropriate to include the experiments by Cole, showing the damage done by thermate on steel, and his experiments trying to make gypsum replicate the damage. His experiments are a real eye-opener, but again not publishing any results gives people an excuse to ignore it. Just another youtube video.

It would be a real pity to have another 9/11 anniversary without this sort of paper and without Basile.