Support 911Blogger


Scientific Method versus Political Method: The US administration and its interpretation of the events of 9/11.

Scientific Method versus Political Method: The US administration and its interpretation of the events of 9/11.

By Arabesque

Updated: 05/02/07 Minor revisions and "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" replaced with "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice"

9/11 was a terrorist attack—or was it?

The US administration released several documents that claim that 9/11 was a terrorist attack. The NIST report,[1] 9/11 commission report,[2] FEMA report and the EPA report on air quality[3] were made by government scientists and high ranking government officials. Excluding the EPA report, all of these reports are used to claim that the official story about 9/11 is true.

Many assume that the reports are accurate and tell the full story of the events of 9/11. Unfortunately, an examination of the track record of the government in relation to science raises serious questions about their credibility.

Credibility[4] is defined as “the quality, capability, or power to elicit belief.”[5]

The most reliable form of credibility is based on the scientific method. The least reliable form is established through repeated or “pathological” lying. If we know someone to be a frequent liar, we will refuse to accept anything they say. Indeed, we will ignore them. This is therefore the most damning blow to an individuals’ credibility.

Is the US administration credible in their scientific reports?

Before answering this question accurately we should first define science. What is the difference between the Scientific method and the Political method?

Scientific Method: Start with the facts and then use them to reach an argument or thesis.

Political Method: Start with a thesis and then examine only the facts that confirm the argument.

The Scientific method is significantly more credible as it does not ignore evidence—it must consider every detail. If evidence contradicts the thesis it must be rejected in favor of a new thesis that follows all of the given evidence. In contrast, the political method often attempts to preserve its thesis even in the face of contradicting evidence.

The US administration has occasionally made reference to “creating our own reality”:[6]

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''[7]

Although our perception of reality may be subjective—reality itself is not; it consists of scientific laws that are observed to be true. “Creating our own reality” entails using facts that support an imaginary “reality” and ignoring facts that do not. This is the very definition of the political method.

But is this policy limited only to political thought? In 2004, “a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates”[8] declared:

“The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad… Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in the conference call, said the administration had ‘engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method.’”[9]

It also found:

· There is a well established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.

· There is strong documentation of a wide-ranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda.

· There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics.

· There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the abuse of science by the Bush administration are unprecedented.[10]

According to these prominent scientists, the US administration is also creating its own “scientific reality”. As defined, this is not science—it is the political method. It is another form of “creating our own reality”. Therefore we must conclude that the credibility of the US administration is lacking if it will distort science to support “policy goals”. This statement by prominent scientists is a damning blow to the scientific credibility of the US administration if it considers policy goals more important than objective scientific results. If the US government is censoring scientists, then we simply can not trust any single report that they release. Censorship of science is a way to ignore evidence and is therefore no longer science by definition. This is the political method in action.

A perfect and credibility crushing example of this practice is shown by the EPA shortly after the 9/11 attacks took place:

On September 18, 2001, as fires still smoldered at the trade center, [Christine Todd] Whitman said the air in Lower Manhattan was ‘safe to breathe.’ She continued to reassure New Yorkers in the days and weeks that followed.”[11]

This has to be one of the most blatant examples of “creating our own [scientific] reality”. This report was completely false and has resulted in a lawsuit:

US District Court Judge Deborah Batts called Whitman's statements "misleading” and "conscience-shocking." She did not grant Whitman immunity from the lawsuit. Residents, students and workers in Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn sued in 2004, saying the actions of Whitman and the EPA endangered their health.”[12]

The report was not only false; it was known to be false!

“Two devastating memos, written by the U.S. and local governments, show they knew. They knew the toxic soup created at Ground Zero was a deadly health hazard. Yet they sent workers into the pit and people back into their homes.”[13]

According to the New York Times, Condoleezza Rice gave “final approval to those infamous EPA press releases days after 9/11.”[14] Therefore, the Government is directly responsible and accountable for this false report that has made several thousands of rescue workers severely ill and disabled from the toxic dust. People are dying and will continue to die because of this report.[15]

Lying is defined as “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.”[16] As indicated, the most devastating blow to credibility occurs when lying is involved. It is quite evident from this shocking example that the US government has a track record that lacks scientific credibility, and therefore should never be completely trusted until they earn that credibility back.

If the government has been historically shown to lack scientific credibility, undermine the results of science, and deliberately lie in “scientific” reports, then it begs the question:

Are the reports released about the 9/11 attacks true? Can we trust them based on their past history of distorting science?

The answer sadly, is no. We can not trust them. Independent scientists with actual credibility are challenging these reports. If a source lacks credibility it is the responsibility and duty of the Media to evaluate other sources that posses more credibility.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is one such group that should be considered more credible than the government.[17] Hundreds of scientists and scholars supporting one basic viewpoint have major credibility.[18] If they lacked as much scientific credibility as the current US administration it is obvious that they would have been fired a long time ago for criminal incompetence, and would not be in a position of authority to have serious questions about the facts of 9/11.

One of the fundamental questions about 9/11 is the WTC tower collapses. The 20 million dollar NIST report is considered the definitive report on the subject of the collapse of the Towers.

By the definition of science the NIST report is not scientific. Analysis proves it uses the political method—not the scientific method. NIST deliberately ignores evidence that contradicts its stated thesis. Apparently, a 20 million dollar study does not buy much these days—NIST does not attempt to explain a fundamental question (i.e. ignoring evidence) about the full behavior of the structural collapse:

[The report] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.[19]

It seems like a good idea that the NIST report did not try to explain this (at least, from their point of view)—as doing so would have to account for a fundamental law of physics known as conservation of momentum, which would completely disprove their hypothesis that fire and jet damage were the main reasons the buildings completely collapsed.

Indeed, the NIST collapse hypothesis that fire and damage caused the towers to completely collapse is easily disproved. According to seismic data[20], the buildings fell in approximately 10 seconds, which is about the rate of free fall speed.[21] In order to fall at free fall speed there would have to be no resistance from material below the collapsing area. Fire and damage alone are inadequate to explain this fact. This is related in a paper entitled “Why Indeed did the WTC towers completely collapse” by physicist Steven E. Jones:

“The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several engineers/scientists (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7 … falls to earth in (6.5 +- 0.2) seconds, while an object dropped from the roof (in a vacuum) would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded [i.e. slowed down] by the impacted mass.”[22]

When an object hits another object, it must slow down. Everyone intuitively understands that you can not walk through walls as if they were not there for the reason that a physical resistance will impede you. The towers and WTC7 fell at free fall speed. This fact alone proves the official report is inadequate to explain what truly happened. When evidence is ignored, it is not science. It is “creating our own reality”—the political method.

It can not be emphasized enough: science by definition considers all of the available evidence; it does not ignore evidence. Another stunning example of ignoring evidence is seen in the molten metal[23] found in the towers which is not discussed in the NIST report.[24] NIST claims:

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires."[25]

If this is the case, then why is there molten steel in the basements of the twin towers and WTC7 for more than four weeks after the disaster?[26] Where do the molten pools of steel come from and what process created this reaction? Why does NIST ignore this question? Ignoring this question is not scientific. Analyzing the steel is a central issue and is fundamental to understanding why the towers collapsed because steel is used as structural support for modern buildings. Indeed, this issue is central to what actually caused the collapse. If fires did not cause this—NIST has stated on the record that fire did not cause steel to melt;[27] something else must have. It is a fact that normal fires are incapable of melting steel.[28]

If fire can not melt steel, what can? Jones argues that:

“these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. [See Grimmer, 2004] Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron.”[29]

Placing explosives in buildings—is this far-fetched? The answer is no; if it is scientifically provable,[30] then no, it is not impossible. On an issue this serious, science must determine our conclusions—not gut feelings or emotions. We must accept this as fact if the evidence supports this claim. Interestingly, some have argued that the US government was responsible for placing bombs in the Oklahoma City Building in1995—this example suggests that planting bombs has been done in the past.[31]

Here is yet another example of NIST “science” in action: computer models are used to “prove” that fire caused collapse:

“World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.”[32]

Is proof scientific if no one can see it? To believe that we can trust NIST on this “evidence” is absurd. Science is not a state secret!

9/11 whistleblower Kevin Ryan, formerly a manager at UL who was peripherally involved in some of the NIST tests, has a laundry list of points that continue to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the NIST study is not scientific and therefore should not be considered credible:

Steel framed buildings have never completely collapsed due to fire in history.[33] The scientific method looks for real-life examples to provide a hypothesis.

Ryan argues that they started with this pre-determined conclusion—despite the fact that this hypothesis has never been documented before in history as mentioned above.[34]

Destroying evidence is a crime and is not scientific. It is a way to ignore evidence. NIST investigator Richard Tomasetti approved the decision to recycle the steel.[35]

The buildings were designed to survive plane crashes thus contradicting the pre-determined hypothesis: "[Building designer John Skilling states that] our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there."[36]

As well, NIST’s scientific data contradicted their own theory: This is not science:

· Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire"

· Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)[37]

· Lab tests showed: Minimal floor sagging.

· No floor collapse

· "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."[38]

All of this NIST data directly contradicts the stated collapse hypothesis. The scientific method demands rejecting a thesis if the evidence contradicts it.

Ryan summarizes the NIST investigation methods:

· Documents needed just happened to be missing

· Eyewitnesses to demolition characteristics were ignored[39]

· Physical tests that disproved pre-determined conclusions were downplayed or ignored

· Entire theory is built on fudged, inaccessible computer simulations. [40]

In summary: NIST does not explain what happened after the collapse began, does not explain the massive pools of molten steel, scientific data contradicts theory, contradictory evidence is ignored, eyewitness testimony is ignored, and the entire theory is based on a computer simulation that no one can see. Ignoring evidence is the very basis of the political method, not the scientific method. Can any unbiased person call the NIST report science?

Unbelievably, there are even more examples that prove the NIST study is not scientific.[41] I believe the above evidence has sufficiently proven this argument. Because the NIST report is not scientific it lacks any credibility. I agree with Kevin Ryan that the NIST report is not science.[42] Indeed, the NIST study is an extremely blatant and scandalous example of the political method at its worst.

Unlike the US government, Steven Jones and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice have credibility and a much more convincing explanation for why the WTC towers collapsed.[43] “No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has never not been a controlled demolition.”[44]

Science accounts for all of the evidence.

The 9/11 commission report is also problematic and is yet another example of the political method. Instead of discussing the issues here, I point you towards David Ray Griffin’s book “The 9/11 Commission Report: omissions and distortions” which concludes that the official report is a “571 page lie”.[45] Again, lying is the most damaging blow to credibility.

In conclusion, the US administration overwhelmingly lacks any scientific credibility. The fact that civil liberties are being destroyed and the constitution is being flagrantly subverted should be disturbing enough in itself. The Media has done a very poor job of evaluating the credibility of the US government and must start to question and be skeptical of any and all reports that are being released until a trace of credibility has been restored. Credibility is established through repeated believability—the US administration has been shown to lack this. In my opinion their credibility on Iraq is even worse than their credibility on 9/11. When are we going to demand some accountability? When are heads going to roll for the continuous stream of lies and unscientific “science” we are fed and told to accept as the truth? Enough is enough.

Resources for research:

Books

David Ray Griffin: The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions
Webster Griffin Tarpley: 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA

Amazon's #1 Non-fiction Reviewer: Tarpley's 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA is "strongest of the 770+ books I have reviewed"

Progressive Press announced that its "9/11 Synthetic Terror" has just been cited as the best non-fiction book ever by Amazon's top non-fiction book reviewer, intelligence professional Robert Steele, in a 5-star review at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0930852370.

Progressive specializes in books that contend 9/11 was an "inside job." Publisher John Leonard says "it's a coup to have Steele with us on this. Here you have a level-headed, respected insider, lifelong Republican, veteran spy, and he's breaking the taboos. It's a great tribute and a vindication of the work we put into 9/11 Synthetic Terror.

"Steele's statement that 9/11 was a "US-based conspiracy" may be a first coming from a senior US intelligence community figure. He came to this conclusion "with great sadness" after reading "9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA," which he praises as "without question, the most important modern reference on state-sponsored terrorism."

Websites

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice:

http://stj911.org/

9/11 Research

http://911research.wtc7.net/

9/11 truth.org:

http://www.911truth.org/index.php

Journal of 9/11 studies:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

9/11 Blogger:
http://www.911blogger.com/

9/11 statement signed by 100 prominent Americans
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911statement

More than 50 prominent government officials who question the 9/11 commission report:
http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

Videos

Whistle Blower Kevin Ryan (discussing the NIST report): A new standard for Deception:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032

Improbable Collapse:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782

9/11 Mysteries:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043

9/11 Press for Truth:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250

Terror Storm:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5792753647750188322

 



[1] http://wtc.nist.gov/

[2] http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

[3] http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/reports-scientific-integrity-in-policy-making.html

[4] A government or a person develops credibility through the process of publishing or expressing views that are supported by the evidence to be true. This is also accumulated through repeated accuracy. The more frequently a source is shown to be accurate, the more that source is held as authoritative. If a source is shown to be repeatedly incorrect, we therefore doubt this source, and without hesitation question the validity of this source.

[5] Credibility. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=credibility (accessed: October 27, 2006).

[6] http://www.cs.umass.edu/~immerman/play/opinion05/WithoutADoubt.html

[7] Ibid.

[8] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-RESE.html?ex=1392526800&en=3a4ea036ff21604b&ei=5007

[9] Ibid.

[10] Read the full report here: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/reports-scientific-integrity-in-policy-making.html

[11] http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/56773 You can read the official EPA release here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1ab9f485b098972852562e7004dc686/d7ada9cf2d39c0a185256acc007c097f?OpenDocument

[12] Ibid.

[13] http://wcbstv.com/911/local_story_249164937.html

[14] http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=62865

[15] http://lungdiseases.about.com/b/a/257077.htm

[16] Lying. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1), Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Lying(accessed: October 27, 2006).

[17] http://stj911.org/

[18] http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html#FullMembers

[19] (NIST report, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12)

[20] http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html

[21] Ibid.

[22] http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf page 27-28.

[23] http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

[24] http://wtc.nist.gov/

[25] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[26] Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6

[27] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[28] Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:

"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel. In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a premixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C." from:

Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001).

[29] Why Indeed did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse, page 6.

[30] http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/200606scientificanalysis.htm

[31] See the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing: (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html). This is a documented example with evidence and eye-witness testimony that bombs were placed in an official government building. As a secure government building, is it possible that a terrorist could get access to place bombs? The odds of this are next to zero. The only individuals who would have enough access to plant bombs in a government building without detection would have to be government insiders. Investigation into this attack, like 9/11, was impeded and evidence was withheld (such as video evidence that would have shown what really happened).

[32] Parker, Dave. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.

[33] Glanz, James, and Lipton, Eric (2002). “Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says,” Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times.

[34] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032 watch starting at 9:14.

[35] Ibid. 9:42

[36] Ibid. 13:59. This is according to building designer John Skilling. See also: http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227 Nalder, Eric. (1993) “Twin Towers Engineered to Withstand Jet Collision”. Saturday, February 27, 1993, Seattle Times. See also: The World Trade Center Building Designers: Claims strongly implicate that the Towers should have remained standing on 9/11

[37] Ibid. 29:40 for points 1-2.

[38] Ibid 34:00 for points 3-5. For these points also see read official NIST report.

[39] See evidence of eye witness testimony here: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html

[40] Ibid. 35:35

[41] http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html

[42] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032 Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth: Reclaiming our future conference. June 4, 2006.

[43] http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

[44] Dr. David Ray Griffin: “The Destruction of the World Trade Center Towers” http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html#multipleevidence

[45] http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm

More information about the book can be found here: http://www.interlinkbooks.com/Books_/911CommRep.html
A Google video with elements from the book can be seen here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6837001821567284154

Code.

Arabesque, nice post, but the HTML is jacked up in Explorer, FYI.

should be fixed now.

should be fixed now.

OK, I've buzzed this story now.

OK, I've really buzzed this article now. (Should it disappear, it must be some sort of newly introduced censorship at buzzflash...)

I made sure there was no other buzz entry there already.

  • First, I extensively searched and parsed the site for a link.
  • Second, I test-submitted 3 other (already buzzed) stories, and each time I was prevented from double-buzzing with a hint/link to the already submitted item. (So this "method" could be used in future for a search to a supposedly buzzed story where the direct link was not given, like here). Buzzing this one didn't show up a double-buzz warning.

So was the 300 US troops

So was the 300 US troops dead thing a hoax? Anyone know more about it?

It Was Terrorists

Terrorists did carry out the 9/11 attacks, the problem is proving which terrorists were the ones who did it.

Scientific Method

Excellent job...my favorite quote:

“No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has never not been a controlled demolition.”

An idea

I have started sending POLITE letters to governments of other countries, imploring them to help us get the truth out in the open.

Extremely thorough, well written, & referenced essay!

Add another nail to the real perpetrators’ coffins!

Undeniable Presentation

This is a powerful post. You've put together the best compilation of definative proof that the Official story, along with the reports supporting the Official story, is nothing but smoke, mirrors, and an unsubstantiated reasoning laden with contradictions. In other words, it's a slam dunk. This compilation should be presented to anyone specifically concerned with looking at the science behind the Official Story. It is a dry scientific explanation as to why the Official Story is false beyond doubt. I don't think the average Joe will have the patience to sit still through the line of reasoning put forthe by Mr. Ryan, but if we were in a court of law, this would be the evidence presented. I think it is a must read for the more honest, intellectual debate about the facts surrounding 911.

The US Orchestrated 9/11, Iranian Government Official Says

This must be a different translation from the earlier ones: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=71812

Excellent post, couldn't

Excellent post, couldn't have put it better myself. Hits all the right areas, most notably the establishments propagation of Junk Science (Politcal Method as you say).

Excellent work. Excellent

Excellent work. Excellent use of the government's own rope to hang it.

We have enough evidence. We need more synthesis and analysis like this.

That is

spot on

you don't say...

The FBI Bombed the WTC in 1993

It's actually far worse than that. The FBI didn't merely let the 1993 WTC bombing happen, they made it happen. In the below article by me one can find audio clips of FBI undercover agent Emad A. Salem and FBI Special Agent John Anticev wherein they discuss how Salem manufactured the bomb under orders and supervision from the FBI and the District Attorney of New York. Also one can find therein an additional New York Times article on this matter.

"The FBI Bombed the World Trade Center in 1993," State-Terror Archive:

http://stateterror.web1000.com/fbi-bombed-wtc.html

____________
"Terrorism is the health of the State."--James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," June 1, 2006 http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf

300+ Casulaties

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MEY20061...

My take on this is that they are going to announce the casualties gradually - 98 for October so far. If you watch the Al Jazerra video, it looks like an atomic bomb going off although it isn't but the explosion is so large that it creates a mushroom cloud.

We are witnessing the final days of the American empire. Hopefully we won't take it out on the rest of the world by starting WWW3.

The powers that be understand that once the empire starts to fall, the first casualty will be the dollar and the American sheeple have not been prepared for the post Ameroempire era.

Does anyone have a source

Does anyone have a source that proves falcon was the "largest arsenal"?

On Mushroom Clouds

An explosion doesn't have to be big in order to create a mushroom cloud.

I remember one time when I was a kid, my dad was clearing the empty lot next to ours which was overgrown with tall grass. He had me and some of my neighborhood friends use empty food cans that we would fill with gasoline in order to throw the contents on the burning grass to get the fire to spread.

It looked like miniature nuclear bombs going off, with the classic mushroom clouds.

____________
"Terrorism is the health of the State."--James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," June 1, 2006 http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf

Nice Piece of Work... Thanks

Hats off!

Show "Scientific Method versus Political Method??? LOL!!!" by CB_Brooklyn

I don't think this is a fair criticism

Arabesque has written an excellent article, and it cites to be both Steven Jones, once, and to Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Gerard Holmgren made valid points about Steven Jones not acknowledging prior research, not acknowledging that this research already provides proof of demolition, and attacking no plane theories without basis, but I don't think it is helpful or fair to discuss that here.

In addition to great analysis, Arabesque's paper strikes me as conciliatory in relation to the divided movement, and I don't think it should be attacked for citing to Steven Jones.

Thank you

However, this was my first ever post on 911blogger. I wrote this before the st911.org split and the current diviseness between the two groups (there was only one group at the time).

I supported st911 at the time, but I decided not to join the group because of the content of its website. Unfortunately, I no longer support st911 for many reasons, including the fact that its members engage in personal attacks against other researchers.

I now fully support scholars for 9/11 truth and justice and have joined that group.

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

Whoops, I did it again

I need to start looking at dates when something pops up on "tracker." I thought you just wrote this. It's a great article.

Oh well, I can continue to hope that this ridiculous split in the camps will go away.

I never saw your article -- it remains a great article.

I don't know if you caught my question at the end, so I'll ask it again. At note 32 and accompanying text, you cite an October 2005 article saying NIST refused to release data to verify their finite element analyses. Do you know if they ever did that? This is a very important question.

Thanks again

I agree that there should be conciliation, but I really doubt we are going to see that. 

Regarding note 32: That's a good question.  The answer is no, NIST has not released their models, and I doubt they would ever willingly do so.  Releasing them would reveal that their report is a complete Scam:  Their conclusions are mostly based on these models, and no one can see them!  I have more quotations about these models below. 

See my blogs on the NIST report here:

9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”: A New Standard For Absurdity

Top 10 reasons why the NIST report is absurd:

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

Article submitted to BuzzFlash. Go Buzz It.

http://www.buzzflash.net/shakeit.php

I sent this article over to BuzzFlash.net. Go there and BUZZ it.

Do you have a direct link to the story entry at buzz?

Sorry, can't find it. Do you have a direct link to the story entry at buzz?

The link you gave is to a complete list of stories. This list is dynamic. It changes every time a new story is submitted to the queue. A story that is at one time on that list, may not be any more an hour later.

Basically, it is of no use at all to give no direct link. You made yourself some work and put the effort in to buzz it, but that work was in vain since no-one can actually follow-up now.

I know from experience: if a direct link is given, only a very limited number (probably less than a dozen) of 911blogger readers will follow it. Maybe I should write a little "Digg HOWTO" in my next blog....

Maybe I should write a little "Digg HOWTO" in my next blog.

Yes, you should.

Incidentally, I poked around over there for a while looking for it but couldn't find it.

OK, I've really buzzed this now.

OK, I've really buzzed this article now. (Should it disappear, it must be some sort of newly introduced censorship at buzzflash...)

I made sure there was no other buzz entry there already. First, I extensively searched and parsed the site for a link. Second, I test-submitted 3 other (already buzzed) stories, and was prevented from double-buzzing with a hint/link to the already submitted item. (So this "method" could be used in future for a search to a supposedly buzzed story where the direct link was not given, like here). Buzzing this one didn't show up a double-buzz warning.


BBC

The BBC's Have Your Say has started posting 911 truth comments under the Iraq Progree discussion. That, and they already recorded a session of 9/11 Truth for Jan broadcast.

ENCOURAGE THEM.

Alexa

Alexa:

Today 911blogger.com is ranked 18,965.

A few months ago it was 110,000.

That's a positive thing.

Brilliant, Arabesque!

I do enjoy great writing like this, particularly when it is about a subject I feel passionately about and reaching conclusions I agree with!

Robert Hoogenboom
Sydney, Australia

I agree

seconded
.

Sanne de Wilde
The Netherlands

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

war on science

Thanks for posting article number 8 by NYT, very interesting and telling. Bush administration has been engaging the war on science since day one and has been proven to be successful so far. It will continue to be a success especially after the recent shutting down of libraries and limiting budget for the EPA to conduct scientific research.

the NRA ain't happy with Bush anymore

In 2004 the NRA endorsed Bush against Kerry, but now they aren't so happy with the neocons anymore, especially after Katrina and martial law in New Oreans:

http://www.givethemback.com/pages/lighting

QUOTE:
"You've seen this brand of abuse of freedom in the history books-in the pages about days of gun confiscations leading to the terror of Stalin, Mao and Hitler. But you'd never in a million years think it could happen in America."

Show "Anyone want tio help yank Kevin Ryan\'s foor from his mouth" by Anonymous (not verified)

Here we go again...

Anonymous sez:

From the record:
WTC 1: ~ 11+ seconds
WTC 2 ~ 12+ seconds

Free Fall speeds:

WTC 1 + 2: 9.34 seconds

IF 11 seconds was \"free-fall\", WTC 1 would have been 1,936 feet tall; WTC 2 would have been 2,304 feet tall.

Ryan\'s canard has been repeatedly debunked.

Defenders of the 'official version of events' continually harp on this slight difference, and in so doing manage to miss the point entirely.

If the towers collapsed due to gravity alone, due to fire somehow weakening every structural support simultaneously, the collapse would have taken far longer than the observed 11-12 seconds, as the falling portion would have to smash through the rest of the building...through supports that the airliner did not hit...through supports that were not 'weakened' by the fire. Conservative estimates place this sort of collapse as taking 45 seconds at the very least...a far cry from the 11-12 seconds observed on 9/11.

Ryan does NOT want to tell you what the videos demonstrate conclusively: WTC 7 fell in 13+ seconds. Internal collapses PRECEEDED the outer wall collapse and NO ONE can ignore the scientific requirement that one MUST include the entire collapse process. Without the internal structural pre-collapse, the outer walls would not have been fallen as fast.

First and foremost, I call bullshit. Provide a link to the videos that conclusively demonstrate that the collapse took 13+ seconds, or admit the lie.

Second, if you have an explanation of WTC 7's collapse that doesn not involve explosives, perhaps you ought to let the government know. To date, they have not provided any explanation for the collapse to WTC 7. Both the first 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST report fail to explain the collapse of WTC 7 at all.

The existence of molten metal has NEVER been demonstrated conclusively.

Another lie. Between the numerous eyewitness accounts, photographic evidence, and the AVIRIS images, the existence of large quantities of molten metal at Ground Zero is an established fact. Attempting to deny this outright shows you for what you really are.

We ALL know here that Steven Jones had to use a piece of concrete with iron rebar coming out of it and CLAIM it was re-solidified molten metal, as if it were possible for molten metal to cool around iron rebar without melting the rebar.

And that sentence sums up concisely how little you know about basic metallurgy. If you're going to try to support the government lie, do yourself a favor and educate yourself first.

And so it goes, another dog and pony show by a defender of the Big Lie who knows he is lying to you.

Are you going to wake up to that fact, or allow yourselves to be used so easily?

Show "Amazing display of denial" by Anonymous (not verified)

Sorry, Anonymous, but you

Sorry, Anonymous, but you seem to be operating under the delusion that FEMA and NIST studied the collapses and found what you think they found. I refer you to what they actually said.

First, they declared their own findings inconclusive:

"With the information and time available, the sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower could not be definitively determined." – FEMA BEPAT, Executive Summary, p.2

Second, the airplane impacts did not topple WTC 1 and 2, and the official theory is essentially based on the claim that fire brought down steel-reinforced skyscrapers for the first time in history:

"The towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact." – NIST, p. xxxviii

Third, the fires did not burn hot enough to melt or deform steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it burned models for over 2 hours:

"None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degrees C for as long as 15 minutes." – NIST, p. 180

"Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." – NIST, p. 181

"All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing…" – NIST, p. 143

Fourth, the towers were built with redundancies capable of withstanding much more than an airplane crash and brief and moderate fire:

"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11." – NIST, p. 143

Fifth, FEMA itself characterized its theory that fire caused WTC7 to collapse as having a "low probability of occurrence," strong words for a scientific report.

Finally, the official explanation of why the towers collapsed does not explain what happened after collapse initiation. There is no official explanation of why the towers fell as they did:

"The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the 'probably collapse sequence,' although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." – NIST, p. 82

great post

simuvac

Thanks for making my case for me, simuvac

Since you want to use NIST make your case, we need only summarize it\'s conclusions, don\'t we?

E.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of
the aircraft.

• The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal
structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly
impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and
would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the
subsequent multi-floor fires. The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large
size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact. The structural system
redistributed loads from places of aircraft impact, avoiding larger scale damage upon impact.
The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was intended to support a television antenna,
prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In each tower, a different combination of
impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural
collapse.

• In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the
building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their
capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became
overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the
south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely
determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the
south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.

• In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the
east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side
of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter
columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring
columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of
the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft
impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the
perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building.
WTC 2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the
building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns, and there were early and
persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged
insulation from the structural steel.

• The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft
impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September 11,
2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally
dislodged by aircraft impact.

• In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to
or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to
the collapse of a WTC tower.

• NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC
towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to
September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit
the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the
collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the
initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.
---

As structural engineers know, simuvac, once global collapse begins, nothing stops it. You nicely avoided addressing my point of what happened when the two blocks of WTC 1 and 2 started to fall.

Also, it never is a good idea to cheery pick quotes and misrepresent the fact that the independently-reviewed NIST investigation followed the INITIAL FEMA investigation which was viewed as inadequate. To take fact know and known for years as distort them for your own purposes only further discredits you and the 9/11 Denial Movement - not that you have already trashed yourselves enough.

As for WTC 7, I refuted every point the poor poster made. But if you or the debunked poster feel FEMA or NIST don\'t have any evidence about the collapse to make a conclusion, fine. Then tell us HOW you or the rest of the 9/11 Denial Movement have come to the conclusions you claim, much less anything based on claims refuted years ago? And you are all are avowed amateurs. Do you intend to continue to represent yourselves as CLAIRVOYANT?

You REALLY need to give up your nonsense, simuvac. It\'s unbecoming for a human being in the 21st Century.

I guess that's why they call it "global"

As structural engineers know, simuvac, once global collapse begins, nothing stops it.

anonymous, do you know what a "tautology" is?

Edit Removed

I had a lover's quarrel with the world. ~ Robert Frost

Jesus isn't a philosopher in the epistemological sense. He's an adviser on how to live your life. ~ EmperorNorton

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. ~ Henry Morris

Written laws are like spider's webs; they will catch, it is true, the weak and poor, but would be torn in pieces by the rich and powerful. ~ Anacharsis

Anonymous

Hey, I reposted this from the "It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up" thread. I wanted to make sure you saw it. Thanks.

So you are not disagreeing with me that the dust study was to determine if the air was safe. And you agree that the government said it was safe and it wasn’t safe. Glad you agree. I hope you see why other studies are in doubt too. Good for you.

I went to scholar.google.com and took a look at a search for “wtc dust”. Seems like the vast majority of the articles say how dangerous the dust was and how may people are gravely ill because of it. The abundance of proof says it was deadly. Thanks for the insight into how wrong the government got it. I now suggest you search scholar.google.com and look at the evidence you suggested I look at. It’s a bit amusing that you refer to something that supports the truthers argument. Interesting.

The first search I did was for “wtc dust” in quotes. It returned “Results 1 - 75 of 75 for "wtc dust". I did a word search for the 75 entries for the word explosives. The word explosives was not found in any of the returns. So you see why your point is dubious.

I then searched for ‘wtc dust’ without the quotes. Results 1 - 100 of about 2,700 for wtc dust. I started searching for explosives in these returns.

Somewhere around 220 was the first article that included explosives. It was titled “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True, by David Ray Griffin”.

I continued searching. About 810 articles into the search results was listed another that included the word “explosives”. ([BOOK] Crime Science: Methods of Forensic Detection J Nickell, JF Fischer - 1998 - books.google.com ... 230 Explosives 233 Case Study: The World Trade Center Bombing 237 Page 8) I think this has to do with the 1993 WTC bombing.

I continued. The next article was at about 1050 articles in. (Improving Performance of HVAC Systems to Reduce Exposure to Aerosolized Infectious Agents in … - group of 4 » PJ HITCHCOCK, M MAIR, TV INGLESBY, J GROSS, TOT DA … - BIOSECURITY AND BIOTERRORISM: BIODEFENSE STRATEGY, PRACTICE, …, 2006 - liebertonline.com ... Terrorists have used high explosives to destroy or damage the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and ... filters, such as MERV 5, are used to prevent dust and lint ...) I think this has to do with the 1993 WTC bombing too.

That was the end of the results. I searched through a thousand articles and only ONE had the word explosives in it and it said explosives were used at the World Trade Center. Any chance you see the irony in this fact? Is there any chance you might see why some people have a hard time believing the official theory?

I then searched for “WTC dust” in quotes and the word explosives. Results 1 - 5 of 5 for "wtc dust" explosives. The first article said, “Efforts were made to qualitatively and quantitatively define the Ground Zero atmospheric environment. The environmental readings that were eventually obtained were confusing, contradictory, and difficult to correlate with human health risk analysis”, not related to explosives residue in the dust. The second article listed did not include the word “explosives. The third article addressed the possibility the explosives were used in the initial impact of the airplanes saying that the expansion of the impact fireballs were not caused by explosives. It made no mention of explosives regarding the collapse or the dust. The forth article was a repeat of the third article on a different website. The fifth and final article was a repeat of first article.

Sigh, well, what now, I searched all of what you asked. In all the articles returned, I found six articles that mentioned "wtc dust" and explosives. One said explosives were used and five were not related to explosives and dust in relation to the collapse of the buildings.

We have a problem, don’t we. All the relevant articles (100%) said explosives were used. Please feel free to duplicate your suggestion and come up with the same results. You seem like you are a bright guy (or girl) and I hope you are of sufficient honor to come back and say ”Gee, Truth for a Change, I guess you seem to have a point.” Or “Here are the articles I was talking about.”

I guess I have to ask you again. Can you please show me some studies that tested the dust for explosives? And by the way, I didn’t say that proof of explosives has been found, I said if conventional explosives were used, there would be a chemical trace found. You see the difference, right?

I have now done the research you suggested, and found the exact opposite of what you believe. I hope you do the same. By following your suggestion, I found that ALL the articles that related to “wtc dust” and “explosives” suggested that explosives WERE used.

I just sat down with myself and had a heart to heart talk with myself. I said “WTF” to myself. How could you have possibly got your information so wrong. Any chance you can see a pattern here. Any chance that you can see why so many people are confused and in disbelief about this situation? I think we are both smart enough to understand this.

I guess we are back at me asking you to find me the phone number of the person that will give me permission to have access to the WTC rubble.

Thanks for your effort, but as you can see, it just made things more confusing for me.

P.S. [your quote – “It would go a long way to showing you the importance of not believing on faith those with an agenda - like Steven Jones and James Fetzer - but questioning them as we do.] You say, “questioning them as we do”. Who exactly are “we”? What group is the “we” you are talking about?

.

While the word is yet unspoken, you are master of it; when once it is spoken, it is master of you. ~ Arab proverb

If fifty million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. ~ Anatole France

If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading. ~ Lao tzu

The believer is happy; the doubter is wise. ~ Hungarian Proverb

Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers. ~ Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Great post!

Someone once said, if you have to feed the trolls make sure it's broccoli. Good, and good for you, too.

WTC Dust

Hey, Anonymous, I just did another search on www.scholar.google.com to clarify your point further. I searched for the words “wtc” “dust” “explosives” “911”. This time I evaluated each article individually. I created four categories on how the article related to 911 dust and the possibility that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.

1. Explosives Not Used
2. Explosives Used
3. Access Restricted
4. Not Applicable/Page Not Found

I found that a lot of the articles I thought would be interesting, like electromagnetic readings on 911 and composition of various samples ended up being Page Not Found.

I spent a long time looking at the articles. I hope you appreciate the effort I made to verify the claim you made about all the papers show that no explosive residue was found in the rubble.

Here are the results of my research.

0 (0%) - - Explosives Were Not Used
4 (2%) - - Access Restricted
9 (5%) - - Explosives Were Used
178 (93%) – Not Applicable/Page Not Found

As you can see, of the 200 or so articles, 93 percent were not relevant. Of the articles that were relevant, 100 percent said explosives were used or residue found. How could you get it so wrong?

This is one of the more interesting articles I found:

Thursday, May 15, 2003 - group of 3 »
SA SESSIONS, A Session - Anesthesiology, 1995 - itaccs.com

http://www.itaccs.com/traumacare/archive/spring_03/thursday.pdf

The eighth section into the paper, “Lessons Learned 911” by Dario Gonzalez, MD, FACEP, Medical Director, Office of Emergency Management, City of New York, Brooklyn, New. York, and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA

In the “Hazard Analysis” section, I found this statement:

“Hazard Analysis. The environment contained hazardous materials, such as jet fuel,
battery acid, asbestos, lead paint, silica, explosives (munitions), radioactive debris, and products of combustion.“

As you can see, this study explicitly states that explosives (munitions) were found at ground zero. I’m not going to interpret this, but there it is.

Thanks for your time.

.

When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist. ~ Archbishop Helder Camara

Christian is a VERB not a noun. ~ Meria Heller

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. ~ Abraham Lincoln

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. ~ Chinese proverb

\"I went to

\"I went to scholar.google.com and took a look at a search for “wtc dust”. Seems like the vast majority of the articles say how dangerous the dust was and how may people are gravely ill because of it. The abundance of proof says it was deadly. Thanks for the insight into how wrong the government got it.\"

Yup. As I said, what was DONE with the studies politically is a different matter, didn\'t I? The point I was making is that the studies do not show evidence of explosives which is the CLAIM of ALL 9/11 conspiracists, correct? So, now that you recognize the existence of the studies, the question arises: they are ALL publicly available and have been all along. How is it possible that YOU missed them? How is it possible that that the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement hasn\'t done its research ALL THESE YEARS and exposed the actual results of the health effects of the dust? Why have you gone around screaming endlessly that the \"gubmint is covering up the health effects\" - when ALL the data is available to EVERY citizen of the United States?

Gosh, you\'ll all just accept what you is fed to you?

\"The first search I did was for “wtc dust” in quotes. It returned “Results 1 - 75 of 75 for \"wtc dust\". I did a word search for the 75 entries for the word explosives. The word explosives was not found in any of the returns. So you see why your point is dubious.\"

Nope. I SPECIFICALLY SUGGESTED doing a search on \"wtc dust\" because the studies were SPECIFICALLY done on the chemical composition of the dust, which, AS YOU WELL KNOW, would reveal any residue of explosives. I did NOT limit you to any search which you can do freely as you please.

\"I then searched for ‘wtc dust’ without the quotes. Results 1 - 100 of about 2,700 for wtc dust. I started searching for explosives in these returns.

\"Somewhere around 220 was the first article that included explosives. It was titled “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True, by David Ray Griffin”.

It took that long to find a 9/11 Denier? And one who is NOT in any way qualified as a scientist to determine the chemical composition of WTC dust, but is just a Theologian?!?!

I hope you are not serious.

\"That was the end of the results. I searched through a thousand articles and only ONE had the word explosives in it and it said explosives were used at the World Trade Center. Any chance you see the irony in this fact? Is there any chance you might see why some people have a hard time believing the official theory?\"

ONE out of 2,700 articles and one article from one who doesn\'t qualify in ANY WAY as an expert in the subject matter and NEVER did a study on the chemical composition of the dust?!?!

\"We have a problem, don’t we\"

Not WE, but YOU.

\" All the relevant articles (100%) said explosives were used. Please feel free to duplicate your suggestion and come up with the same results. You seem like you are a bright guy (or girl) and I hope you are of sufficient honor to come back and say ”Gee, Truth for a Change, I guess you seem to have a point.” Or “Here are the articles I was talking about.”

Funny that your first search of \"wtc dust\" produced 75 results and then a search within the results produced zero entries for explosives, eh? Then you do a second search using the same criteria and came up with 5 results including explosives.

In any case you haven\'t revealed your 5 sources - is Griffin (LOL) one of them? - OR what these \"studies\" demonstrate.

\"Any chance that you can see why so many people are confused and in disbelief about this situation? \"

Frankly, NO.

I have to admit that I see how you are far more confused than I thought, but then you were prompted to do research that you should have done years ago, by my prodding, so I will give you credit there.

Now, let\'s have the specific reports you found to demonstrate that the buildings were definitively brought down by explosive demolitions.

\"Thanks for your effort, but as you can see, it just made things more confusing for me.\"

Let me help you unconfuse yourself.

P.S. [your quote – “It would go a long way to showing you the importance of not believing on faith those with an agenda - like Steven Jones and James Fetzer - but questioning them as we do.] You say, “questioning them as we do”. Who exactly are “we”? What group is the “we” you are talking about?

There is no \"group\". It is the majority of us who chose to think rationally about the world, who are skeptics by nature, as scientists and rational people are, who do not accept claims without evidence but know how to evaluate competing claims and arrive at rational conclusions. There is a lot of precedence for \"9/11 denial\" both of those who seek to take advantage of others - e.g., Griffin, Fetzer, Jones - and those willing to suspend disbelief and follow those like Fetzer.

We are the VAST majority and look with incredulity, sadness, and anger at 9/11 denial.

Did you go to a special school to learn doublespeak?

"There is no \"group\". It is the majority of us who chose to think rationally about the world, who are skeptics by nature, as scientists and rational people are, who do not accept claims without evidence but know how to evaluate competing claims and arrive at rational conclusions."

It's amazing how well you articulate the exact opposite of the truth, or, alternatively, describe so accurately the group of people to whom you are opposed.

Once again, a truther prepares an haute cuisine meal for a troll, who proceeds to vomit it upon the truther's shoes.

9/11 Denier \"Quote of the Day\"

Congratulations, casseia, you win today\'s prize for most-extreme denial of the truth.

Where do you people come from, anyway?

Unreasonable State of Deinal

\”Yup. As I said, what was DONE with the studies politically is a different matter, didn\'t I? The point I was making is that the studies do not show evidence of explosives which is the CLAIM of ALL 9/11 conspiracists, correct? So, now that you recognize the existence of the studies, the question arises: they are ALL publicly available and have been all along. How is it possible that YOU missed them? How is it possible that that the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement hasn\'t done its research ALL THESE YEARS and exposed the actual results of the health effects of the dust? Why have you gone around screaming endlessly that the \"gubmint is covering up the health effects\" - when ALL the data is available to EVERY citizen of the United States?”

This is great. We both agree with the truthers that the evidence shows that the studies found the air at ground zero dangerous and the government said it was safe. I never gone around screaming endlessly that the \”gubmint is covering up the health effects\" now, but it is crystal clear that at the time the government either lied or misinterpreted the data. Come on, we both agree and you agree with the truthers on this issue. That’s a good thing. That’s what I’m pointing out.

/”Nope. I SPECIFICALLY SUGGESTED doing a search on \"wtc dust\" because the studies were SPECIFICALLY done on the chemical composition of the dust, which, AS YOU WELL KNOW, would reveal any residue of explosives. I did NOT limit you to any search which you can do freely as you please.”/

Hmmmm, if you read the post titled “anonymous" above, you will see that I indeed search for “WTC dust” I searched both with and without quotes I found references to explosives and they all supported the theory that explosives were used. I’m not sure what you are talking about here. I did the search and found that your claim was not true. Please do the search yourself and verify my results.

\”It took that long to find a 9/11 Denier? And one who is NOT in any way qualified as a scientist to determine the chemical composition of WTC dust, but is just a Theologian?!?!

I hope you are not serious.”/

This result came from your suggestion that I look at your criteria. I looked at your criteria and the Griffith article was the first one to appear that was relevant. Are you suggesting that I disregard the ones that differ with you and create some that agree with you? I think not. If you want the correct results you have to live with what was at www.scholar.google.com. You really can’t be serious about this. The results of what you suggested showed your belief that the articles would ALL show no explosives. In fact none showed the absence of explosives and in fact all relavent articles did contend that explosives were used or traces were found. I’m not sure what you want me to do. I already did the google search and found the opposite of your belief. Please do the research yourself and show where I was wrong. Please present some articles that specifically show no explosives residue in the WTC rubble.

\”Funny that your first search of \"wtc dust\" produced 75 results and then a search within the results produced zero entries for explosives, eh? Then you do a second search using the same criteria and came up with 5 results including explosives.

In any case you haven\'t revealed your 5 sources - is Griffin (LOL) one of them? - OR what these \"studies\" demonstrate.”\

I see you are having a hard time understanding what I did. First you have to realize that when you search google and you use a number of terms enclosed in quotes, that is a different search that if you search for those terms without the quotes. I did a search using the “wtc” “dust” as two separate terms and a search using “wtc dust” with both terms enclosed in quotes. I included explosives in some of the searches because that is the very basis of this discussion. You know that.

Again, WTF, I specifically did reference the 5 results I got. Are you even reading my posts? I’m at a complete loss at your inability to see that. All you have to do is go to www.scholars.google.com and enter “wtc dust” and “explosives” in the engine and then click “Search”. It takes about 20 seconds to do this and you can see the results yourself. Of the 5 results the only one that was relative to 911, dust and explosives, it was:

Thursday, May 15, 2003 - group of 3 »
SA SESSIONS, A Session - Anesthesiology, 1995 - itaccs.com ... jet fuel, battery acid, asbestos, lead paint, silica, explosives (munitions), radioactive ... The ever-present WTC dust was composed of silica (windows), concrete ...

http://www.itaccs.com/traumacare/archive/spring_03/thursday.pdf

Here’s the relevant quote from that paper:

Hazard Analysis. The environment contained hazardous materials, such as jet fuel, battery acid, asbestos, lead paint, silica, explosives (munitions), radioactive debris, and products of combustion. Traditional site environmental risk-assessment activities had technical problems. . . . Efforts were made to qualitatively and quantitatively define the Ground Zero atmospheric environment. The environmental readings that were eventually obtained were confusing, contradictory, and difficult to correlate with human health risk analysis.

There is no doubt what the above says. It says that “explosives (munitions)” were found. Again I just can not understand what you don’t understand about this. All you have to do is look it up yourself. What’s the problem here? Look it up, come back here and say “okay, you are right.” For you to say this doesn’t exist is a clear indication that you can not accept reality. Get a grip.

I am totally amazed that you can go on like this. You really have a serious problem with facing evidence. You will not produce any evidence yourself and reject evidence I show you. That is not rational. You know that. You know that you are not bringing anything to this discussion. You really have sit down and have a heart to heart talk with yourself and realize that everything you believe is not necessarily absolutely correct. You do know that the primary symptom of paranoia is being completely and positively sure that you are correct about everything.

As my posts show, I am not positive about anything about 911, but as I talk to you, everything points to the exact opposite of what you say. Proven by the evidence I have presented. You on the other hand have not produced one single piece of evidence that supports your claims. This isn’t difficult for anyone to understand. It is logical and reasonable. And you know it. I understand how hard it must be for you to see the results of your request to search www.scholar.google.com for articles that relate to “wtc dust” and “explosives” and then see that the relevant articles completely reject your opinion. But a person of proper moral beliefs must accept what is provable and work to change their mind about some things.

The absurd man is one who never changes. ~ Auguste Barthelemy

In order to learn, one must change one's mind. ~ Orson Scott Card

The foolish and dead alone never change their opinion. ~ James Russel Lowell

Ignorance is always afraid of change. ~ Jawaharlal Nehru

.

\”We are the VAST majority and look with incredulity, sadness, and anger at 9/11 denial.”/

Again can you please post the phone number of the person that can give me permission to study the WTC rubble or are you of the opinion that the evidence should be covered up?

.

Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain't that a big enough majority in any town? ~ Mark Twain

In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place. ~ Mohandas Gandhi

PLEASE do your homework

>/”Nope. I SPECIFICALLY SUGGESTED doing a search on \\\"wtc dust\\\" because
>the studies were SPECIFICALLY done on the chemical composition of the
>dust, which, AS YOU WELL KNOW, would reveal any residue of explosives. I
> did NOT limit you to any search which you can do freely as you
>please.”/

\"Hmmmm, if you read the post titled “anonymous\" above, you will see that I indeed search for “WTC dust” I searched both with and without quotes I found references to explosives and they all supported the theory that explosives were used. I’m not sure what you are talking about here. I did the search and found that your claim was not true. Please do the search yourself and verify my results.\"

Let me quote you again specifically:

\"The first search I did was for “wtc dust” in quotes. It returned “Results 1 - 75 of 75 for \"wtc dust\". I did a word search for the 75 entries for the word explosives. The word explosives was not found in any of the returns. So you see why your point is dubious.\"

Dubious?

Later you state:

\"I then searched for “WTC dust” in quotes and the word explosives. Results 1 - 5 of 5 for \"wtc dust\" explosives....Sigh, well, what now, I searched all of what you asked. In all the articles returned, I found six articles that mentioned \"wtc dust\" and explosives. One said explosives were used and five were not related to explosives and dust in relation to the collapse of the buildings. We have a problem, don’t we. All the relevant articles (100%) said explosives were used.\"

It should be clear reading your own posts that the problem is yours. No?

OK. The search term \"wtc dust\" produced 75 results. The search term \'\"wtc dust explosives\"\' produced 5 results. Searching WITHIN the term \"wtc dust\" for \"explosives\" is EXACTLY the same as searching \'\"wtc dust\" explosives.\" You specifically treated it as different whjen they are the same.

Now you have an even bigger problem: since searching \'\"wtc dust\" explosives\' is searching WITHIN the broader term \"wtc dust\" the 5 results you obtained must be included within the larger set of 75 terms retrieved for \"wtc dust.\" Indeed, they are. ALL 5 papers are included in the original search for \"wtc dust\". You need to brush up on proper searching.

Now, to the heart of the matter. You claim: \"All the relevant articles (100%) said explosives were used.\" A reading of each paper says no such thing.

\"Here’s the relevant quote from that paper: Hazard Analysis. The environment contained hazardous materials, such as jet fuel, battery acid, asbestos, lead paint, silica, explosives (munitions), radioactive debris, and products of combustion....There is no doubt what the above says. It says that “explosives (munitions)” were found. Again I just can not understand what you don’t understand about this. All you have to do is look it up yourself. What’s the problem here? Look it up, come back here and say “okay, you are right.” For you to say this doesn’t exist is a clear indication that you can not accept reality. Get a grip.\"

That\'s very funny. My grip on reality is firm but I wonder about yours.

Let\'s start at the beginning. The 9/11 Denial Movement, led by the claims of Stephen Jones, claims ALL three towers could not have fallen as claimed but HAD to have been brought down by \"explosive demolition.\" I brought your attention to the fact that NO residue from any explosives were found in the various studies done immediately afterward showing ANY residue from explosives. Stephen Jones knows this too. He specifically brought by Thermite/Thermate (incendiaries) to explain how the buildings were brought down since THAT residue was found. Despite his attention being brought to the fact that many different conditions existed on 9/11 from the events that could have independently produced Thermate/Thermite, thereby putting the onus on him to eliminate those other possibilitiers, he refuses to do so.

I invited you to do research on your own, research you hadn\'t done, on the studies of the wtc dust and I said quiote clearly that NONE of the studies found residue from explosives. After all your jumping around, you have confirmed my statement. But you are still evading the point by insisting that ONE paper that SAID munitions were there, and that\'s the only reference to \"explosives\" proves me wrong. This is after you stated, incredibly, that, \"All the relevant articles (100%) said explosives were used.\"

Munitions?

Definition: \"Munition is often defined as a synonym for ammunition. A slightly broader definition would include bombs, missiles, warheads, and mines (landmines, naval mines, and claymore mines) -- what munitions factories manufacture. These munitions are flung all over battlefields and war zones with lethal intent; unexploded ones may pose a hazard to civilians for years afterwards.\"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munition

So, compleltely AGAINST any claim by 9/11 Deniers, you are suggesting that the possible finding of ammunitions (ammo for security guards at WTC?) suggests \"explosives were used.\"

So you should know that your final statement is ridiculous: \"As my posts show, I am not positive about anything about 911, but as I talk to you, everything points to the exact opposite of what you say. Proven by the evidence I have presented.\"

The evidence you have produced specifically supports what I said: NO residue of explosives that would indicate the buildings were brought down with explosives were found in the studies done on the WTC dust.

Have a nice time. Best you go do your homework.

I'll Try to Make This as Simple as I Can

Here is a direct quote from you:

\”You're just afraid to admit every study done, of which there are DOZENS, on the dust and the debris, failed to come up with ONE SINGLE PIECE of evidence of explosive residues of any type.”/

Here is a direct quote from the article in question I found on www.scholar.google.com:

“Hazard Analysis. The environment contained hazardous materials, such as jet fuel, battery acid, asbestos, lead paint, silica, EXPLOSIVES (MUNITIONS), radioactive debris, and products of combustion.“

Here is the name of the article:

The eighth section into the paper, “Lessons Learned 911” by Dario Gonzalez, MD, FACEP, Medical Director, Office of Emergency Management, City of New York, Brooklyn, New. York, and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA

Here is the URL of the article:

http://www.itaccs.com/traumacare/archive/spring_03/thursday.pdf

As you can see, you are incorrect in your statement. Either you admit that your statement is incorrect because the above article PROVES that your statement is incorrect (all you have to do is go to the article and read it), or I will have to conclude that you are indeed someone that can not accept reality. This is not difficult. And everyone that reads this can see clearly that you are in complete denial of reality.

I am perfectly willing to say that evidence of explosives is not proof that explosives were used to bring down the buildings, if you are willing to admit that evidence of explosives does not prove that explosives were not used. Can we agree on this?

Please try to understand why so many people doubt the official theory. People like you say things that are POSITIVELY PROVABLY WRONG, You are shown the PROOF and you refuse to admit it. I’m sorry, in my quest to find out the reality of what happened on 911 here, you more than anyone has made it obvious that something is fishy. If you are willing to admit that your above statement is incorrect, then I will see that you are somewhat willing to be reasonable. If you do not admit your statement above is incorrect, you give evidence that you and the No-Truthers are lying through your teeth. Are you willing to admit it or not?

I’m not going to get into the questions about how search parameters work with quotes too much. Using quotes alters the results of a search. Terms in quotes are found only if the terms searched for are all found EXACTLY in the order in the quotes. I have already taught you that searching for - “wtc dust” - and searching for - “wtc” “dust” - give different results. I have a feeling you are not capable of understanding the concept. All I can suggest is that you try it yourself, if you want to see the reality.

Every step of the way leads me to believe that you don’t know what you are talking about and if you are not willing to correct your mistake, then you are worthy of the name of the group you work with, the No Truthers. You invite me to do my research, I have. You on the other hand have not done your research.

Remember that everyone that reads this can go read that above referenced article and clearly see that you are wrong. All you have to do to show that you are somewhat reasonable is admit that your following statement is not true.

\”You're just afraid to admit every study done, of which there are DOZENS, on the dust and the debris, failed to come up with ONE SINGLE PIECE of evidence of explosive residues of any type.”/

\“Hazard Analysis. The environment contained hazardous materials, such as jet fuel, battery acid, asbestos, lead paint, silica, EXPLOSIVES (MUNITIONS), radioactive debris, and products of combustion.“/

.

Watching television is like taking black spray paint to your third eye. ~ Bill Hicks

If you've seen one Redwood tree, you've seen them all. ~ Ronald Reagan

We don't have to protect the environment; the Second Coming is at hand. ~ James Watt, Reagan’s Secretary of Interior

It is better to teach knowledge one hour in the night, than to pray the whole night. ~ Prophet Muhammad

You cannot shake hands with a clenched fist. ~ Indira Gandhi

Now everyone knows you are in complete denial.

It\'s quite funny to see you deny your own findings, the findings which confirm what I said from the beginning: that no explosive residue was found in the dust from the studies done of the chemical composition of the dust.

Instead, you try to contort logic that one paper that mentioned \"munitions\" is evidence of \"explosive residue.\"

Munitions were found, not \"explosive residue\" as a component of the dust. This is abundantly clear since NO study found \"explosive residue as a chemical component of the dust. You yourself CONFIRM that.

Munitions can be anything from bullets to bombs as you can see clearly from the definition of \"munitions.\" It would make sense that policemen\'s/security guards\' bullets would be found scattered at the site. But munitions are munitions; they ARE not a chemical component of dust whether at WTC or anywhere else. You have ONE paper that mentions munitions and does so without providing evidence. Yet, for you, that is evidence

NO one in the 9/11 Denial Movement claims the towers were brought down with \"munitions\"!

As I stated at the outset:

\"There were MANY independent studies done to map the exact chemical composition of the dust at the site and off-site starting in October 2001.\"

---

\"ALL of the studies you will find have the purpose of establishing that EXACT chemical composition of the dust. What do you think the purpose was other than to FIND OUT what the dust was composed of. If explosive residue were there it would have been found and the analysis would have determined what kind of explosive had been used.

\"But NO explosive residue was found in any of the studies.\"
---

You can deny it all you want, Truth for a Change, but you have not demonstrated that ANY chemical traces of explosive residue were found as a component of the WTC period. You only demonstrated clearly that my statements are correct.

Show "this is great and just a" by Anonymous (not verified)

In the Cool Of The Evening

SPOOKY
Gary
911truthnc.org
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

Anonymous comments

Which link in my essay directly mentions holocaust denial? Does my post talk about this issue? What does this have to do with 9/11?

It is time to just look at just the arguments. Attacking people with unrelated issues does not accomplish anything. It’s an evasion tactic. Talk about the relevant issues. Of course they don't want us to do that. We have to realize that attacking people is much less productive than focusing on ideas. An idea or argument is the most powerful weapon to use against a lie.

Thanks for all the great feedback I did get. I hope to post more in the future.

Arabesque

Why do you deny it?

Denial is denial is denial.

9/11 Denial, that practiced by the 9/11 Truth Movement, is no different than Holocaust Denial. Only the SUBJECT matter is different.

Denial is a pathology. That\'s why the proper name for the \"9/11 Truth Movement\" is the \"9/11 Denial Movement.\"

\"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the \"evidence\" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry.\"

- Micahel Shermer, \" Fahrenheit 2777. 9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories.\"
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B...

After reading this article I

After reading this article I realize that my long slow transformation in to the type of person I am today was inevitable. The destruction of almost all of the steel frames of the towers and building seven had seemed creepy even going back to 2001-2002. I’m now a 9 11 skeptic who checks these type of sites every day. I almost never watch television. I play audio of Fetzer and David Ray Griffin. I have told many people my opinion about what happened on that day and have frequently met with shock and anger when I do. I can’t help it and can't stop. I am trying to get back a world that makes sense . The article here is right. This is the ‘politicalization’ of science.

Years ago, didn’t Prime Minister Churchill call it ‘perversion’ of science?

disinfo comments from paid

disinfo comments from paid agents seem to have taken their toll on this post.

Their desperation is striking lol. Why doesn't 911 blogger block these paid govt spammers?

they shouldnt be blocked...

they shouldnt be blocked... there's no point heh

HAHAHAHAHA who was it that

HAHAHAHAHA who was it that said Fetzer and Professor Jones have an AGENDA?
What is the Agenda?! Are they going to fool us all into believing in the fact that our government played a major role in 9/11 while they make TRILLIONS ON TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS from the profits they are reaping?! What about the fame they are receiving from the world? How they are admired by kids and adults alike, how they grace our popular magazines and are awarded the Nobel Peace Prize every time.
THESE GUYS ARE MAKING 0 PROFIT, ARE SPIT ON BY THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA AND LUNKHEADS LIKE YOU EVERY DAY...WHAT IS THEIR AGENDA?

And FEMA and NIST...they have NO agenda...they are pure and innocent...are they even government entities? I forget...

The Truth of 9/11 is in the Physics and Physical Laws.

The 9/11 Truth Movement is being played for suckers by the perpetrators of 9/11. The perpetrators encourage us to concentrate on impeaching Bush, and distract us from understanding what really happened, and going after the real criminals

hmmm

hmmm

Notice how every post on

Notice how every post on this board that agrees with the government's version has negative points.
We are totally winning this war...every single board has 90% 9/11 Truthers and a few trolls who lurk around pasting the same garbage then starting a new thread once they are totally discredited.
WE ARE WINNING! KEEP IT UP!

Heh!

\"The destruction of almost all of the steel frames of the towers and building seven had seemed creepy even going back to 2001-2002..\"

Evidence by \"personal impression\" s what drives you. No matter what structural engineers say, eh?

This is what leads the gullible like you to accept unqualified snake-oil salesman like Fetzer and Griffin and what allows them to get away with it.

Wake up, lazy brains.

I suppose it was a personal

I suppose it was a personal impression in a way but also the two courses I had in the US Army about how to demolish large steel framed structures using explosives (12B). It creeped me out because the destruction LOOKED like an explosion. You're right I am kind of lazy now though, how about you? Ever been in the service?

Also, I would expect that

Also, I would expect that people with more recent experience with this topic for example Active 12Bs get a chance to read blogs like this one. After all, no one pays more dues for freedom than an active military person with a dangerous job like 12B -correct? You know what else? When I hear than another one got killed in Iraq sometimes I cry.

Is NIST still refusing to release visualizations?

Arabesque, about note 32 and associated text, has NIST still not released the visualizations? That would be good to know.

This is a really fine article Thank you.