Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don’t Exist

Another Opportunity to Understand Our Predicament

Over the years we’ve heard from a few educated people who claim to understand and support the latest story given by the US government for the unprecedented destruction of the WTC buildings. Unfortunately, those folks usually turn out to either work for the Bush Administration directly, like FEMA and NIST, or are in some other way profiting from the War on Terror. Some people accept what these Bush scientists say because they have PhDs in scientific fields, or because certain media sources promote the official myths. In a way, the curious behavior of these scientists and media sources allows us to better see the predicament we all face.

With the case of Manuel Garcia, and his three recent, rapid-fire articles in Counterpunch, we appear to have another opportunity to examine the phenomenon of Bush science. Here we see a fully educated scientist making strong supportive statements of the Bush Administration’s 9/11 theories, despite the fact that he must know those theories are based on false or unsubstantiated claims. For our own understanding, let’s take a closer look at Manuel Garcia and his efforts.

Garcia not only works for the government, he works for a very interesting organization in terms of the best hypothesis for what happened that day. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Garcia’s employer, appears to be where explosive thermite was invented, and it continues to be a focus of research there.(1) At LLNL, government scientists have learned how to combine the exothermic power of the thermite reaction with organic moieties to produce a thermite reaction that can do pressure/volume work (i.e. turn massive quantities of concrete and other building materials into dust). From the research of Steven Jones, we know that the thermite reaction likely played a role in bringing the towers down, and it would not be surprising if technology developed by LLNL was involved. Could that be why Manuel Garcia is so intent on seeing Physics that don’t exist, in order to avoid seeing links to technology developed by his employer?

There may be more to it than that. Notice that there are many aspects about the official story of 9/11/01 that strain credulity, to say the least, but none more so than the “collapse” of the WTC buildings. As with the air defense failures, we’ve been given several contradictory stories about these events over the years, none of which have panned out. The first was an urban legend that grew, as a result of the long delays in official commitment, from media reports of extreme temperatures and melting steel. We were given other stories for the destruction of these buildings, but the Pancake Theory, which was the primary explanation offered by FEMA and was the central explanation in numerous media stories, lasted for a period of more than three years. The Pancake Theory recently died a quiet death with the FAQ responses offered by NIST, but as with the urban legend media stories, we have been offered no apologies from those who propped-up the ongoing 9/11 Wars with these false claims.

So when a US weapons scientist, like Manuel Garcia, offers more wild speculation in support of the Bush Administrations’ ever-changing stories, we must first recognize that this is not really about serious researchers quibbling over minor details of physical evidence. We must realize that Garcia and his ilk have already given us several false stories for the destruction of these buildings, and those lies have resulted not only in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, but have also supported the systematic conversion of America into a totalitarian state waiting to happen. What will become of those Bush scientists if honest people ever achieve the awareness and political will to call for a real investigation?

Quantum Behavior

In his “Physics of 9/11”, Garcia offered his new “twisted joints” theory, adding more conjecture to the miasma that NIST spent three years crafting. Garcia may have twisted a few joints himself before writing these articles, but it is clear that he did not put much time into reviewing NIST’s WTC report before putting his reputation, and perhaps much more, on the line to defend it. NIST did not actually describe the all-important forces that supposedly pulled in the tower’s external columns. In their computer model, these forces were phantom forces, applied to the external columns by sagging floors that had, paradoxically, been disconnected from those columns. Garcia’s talk of twisting joints is, therefore, only imaginative conjecture at best.

Garcia seems to admit his own sloppy dishonesty by claiming that high temperatures in the impact zone were sufficient to soften the steel, and that floors in the impact zone sagged. One only has to read the summary of the NIST report to know that the impact zones were far from where NIST says the buildings failed. However, there could be another explanation for this “spooky action at a distance.” Garcia may have stumbled upon a new demonstration of the principle of Physics known as non-locality, one in which steel heated in one place causes steel located in another, far away place to soften and fail. That would be amazing if true.

The greater part of this first article is simply wild speculation, a crime in itself at this point. Although NIST admits that many scientists, given millions of dollars and several years to work on it, could not describe the dynamics of collapse for the towers, Garcia makes a one-man job of it in order to put those silly conspiracy theorists in their place. He offers equations and terms like “wave trains” to ensure that those of us who need to “expand [our] range of rationality and hence [our] political maturity” can do so, if only we can follow his superior thought processes. In Garcia’s dreamlike world of superiority, strange things happen. Floors vanish and buildings begin crashing to the ground, as a result of fire-softened steel, at an initial speed of 16 mph. That is, there is no zero point at which such a building begins to drop. These skyscrapers actually exhibit quantum behavior, as large multi-floor sections go from rest to a speed of 16 mph instantaneously! Garcia appears humble when describing this monumental discovery, telling us little about the “rippling wavelets” that make it so. He finally sums up his findings by simply stating that “The towers shattered, and the pieces fell to the ground.” Perhaps someone should call the Nobel committee.

The Energy Crisis Solved

Garcia’s second article, “The Thermodynamics of 9/11”, does not improve upon the first. Here he repeats his ridiculous claim of the importance of high temperatures in the impact zone (far from the failure zone), and then states that the “fatal element in the WTC Towers story is that enough of the thermal insulation was banged off the steel frames by the airplane jolts…”. Of course, those of us who have actually followed NIST’s investigation know that they could not produce any “robust criteria” to establish that fireproofing was lost through forces of vibration. Instead, NIST performed a shotgun test to see if the fireproofing could have been lost through shearing forces.

The shotgun test not only failed to support NIST’s pre-determined conclusions, as was the case for all of their other physical tests, but it actually proved that the fireproofing could not have been sheared off because too much energy would be needed. This did not deter NIST, as they simply proceeded by filling their computer model with vague, sweeping assumptions like suggesting that the fireproofing was completely removed wherever the office furnishings were damaged (i.e. if a cube wall fell or a pencil was broken, thousands of square meters of fireproofing must have been sheared off too).(2) If it was not already clear that Garcia never read NIST’s WTC report, we might think that he got his quantum leaps from them.

Garcia’s analysis of the WTC thermodynamics then begins with the removal of all of the fireproofing from all the steel, an unsupported assumption at best. In any case, to consider temperature increases, an honest scientist would take the materials and the energy sources involved, and perform some straightforward calculations to evaluate the available energies. In the case of the WTC towers, we know from FEMA and NIST that about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed the fires on the impact and failure floors, giving an energy value of approximately 600 GJ, considering moderate combustion. And we know the buildings had a fire load of 20 Kg/m^2, which would provide an energy value of about 500 GJ for the furnishings on several floors in the vicinity of the failure zones.(3) These realistic values give a total energy of about 1,100 GJ that would be available to heat one building, but Garcia uses 8,000 GJ and 3,000 GJ, values NIST created through their deceptive, pretzel-logic manipulations.

Maybe this incredible energy yield means that Garcia and NIST have solved the energy crisis, and we can end the 9/11 Wars and bring our troops home. If not, maybe Garcia can help us understand where all that additional energy came from, instead of just spouting off with so much arrogance. We really would appreciate it.

In the absence of this explanation, Garcia proceeds to apply this tremendous amount of mysterious energy to the heating of the materials involved. But instead of taking the quantities of steel, concrete, and other materials into account (don’t forget the aircraft itself) Garcia helps us to “expand our range of rationality” by dumbing-down the scenario using a “fictitious homogenized” substance called “ironcrete”. Garcia muddies the water with his ironcrete because, although he doesn’t give the calculations, this allows him to use a sleight of hand, giving a value for specific heat that is less than that of any of the starting materials. Few would notice, but this means that, in support of Garcia’s purposes, it takes less heat to increase the temperature of each kilogram of ironcrete than it would to increase the temperature of the steel and concrete used in the WTC towers. Since he’s using eight times more energy than could have been available anyway, this minor scam doesn’t seem worth the effort.

But note that Garcia also suggests all the available heat became trapped in his ironcrete, thereby assuming that no hot gases left the impact zone, that no heat escaped by conduction, and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. He also conveniently ignores all the other materials in the aircraft and the buildings, including the Aluminum, all the office furnishings, and the vast amount of air and water vapor, all of which would be heated too, absorbing energy. Considering his quantum mechanical collapse dynamics and magical fireproofing loss, these distributions of heat energy may not seem so strange, that is until Garcia needs that energy back to support his later claims of melting Aluminum, plastic “cracking” to create dense pockets of hydrocarbon vapors that mimic high-explosives, and even a replay of the beginnings of life on earth (no kidding).

The Dark Matter of Intelligent Fuel

By the time we get to Garcia’s third article, we’re either believing this guy is the greatest scientist in history, or we’re understanding that his series in Counterpunch may be something more of a sucker punch. In this third article, “Dark Fire”, Garcia claims to have single-handedly solved the problem that baffled FEMA and NIST, as well as all objective people around the world -- the collapse of WTC 7.

Now if Garcia had proven the quantum behavior of large objects, and had developed a method for extracting eight times the normal amount of energy from a gallon of hydrocarbon fuel, as his previous articles suggest, we might be intrigued. Maybe the title of this third article is a reference to the combustion of the elusive dark matter that Physicists have long sought after. Let’s take a look.

The challenge of explaining the collapse of WTC 7 was described by Jim Hoffman with the following three points.

* This steel-framed skyscraper collapsed into its footprint with all the characteristics of a standard controlled demolition.
* No other steel-framed building that collapsed for any reason has ever shown any of those features -- let alone all those features.
* No other tall steel-framed building has ever collapsed from fires -- the primary cause of WTC 7's collapse according to the official story.

Additionally, we know that FEMA spent eight months of exhaustive work on the investigation, finally claiming that “The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers.” They then added that their “best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST has spent several years trying to come up with a legitimate, non-explosive explanation, so far without success. But our hero Garcia takes FEMA’s low probability scenario, embellishes it a bit, and boldly declares “This is what happened”, leaving no room for doubt.

The initiating event of Garcia’s low probability theory is a “hot volley” of “incandescent metal and heated stone” that destroyed a fuel oil distribution pipe in the southwest corner of WTC 7. Where the stone came from we’ll never know (maybe it was an asteroid), but the probability that the temperature of the steel from the towers, which NIST measured at 250 C, could cause that steel to glow in incandescence, is essentially nil.

FEMA pointed out a string of improbable events that would need to come together for the rest of this story to pan out, but they made clear that the biggest problem was that WTC 7 first began to collapse on the east side, far from the distribution pipe that Garcia builds his story on. This means that the fuel oil released from any such breakage would need to exhibit the features of an intelligent migration, pumping up from multiple tanks on the ground floor, through the damaged pipe in the southwest corner of the building, traversing a distance of 250 feet across the fifth floor without any spreading or transfer loss, to pool very selectively beneath truss #2 in a mechanical room on the east side of the building.

This theory depends on much more creative guesswork, including the following.

* None of this intelligently migrating fuel oil found its way to the containment vessel that was designed for such an event, and therefore never triggered the safety mechanism that would automatically de-energize the pumps.

* The authorities that decided not to fight the fires in WTC 7 also decided not to cut the power to these pumps, allowing them to spray oil within this burning skyscraper, for up to seven hours, in the middle of Manhattan.

* The pooled fuel oil was somehow heated to a sufficient temperature for ignition, at which point an unknown ignition source initiated an efficient, multi-hour burn.

* Although now situated in an enclosed room with limited space, the oil found limitless Oxygen in order to extract every bit of energy from the assumed maximum amount of 12,000 gallons.

* The fires generated by this burning fuel oil centered in a highly specific formation directly beneath that critical truss, and the heat produced was perfectly contained and directed at the truss itself but nowhere else.

* This truss-specific fire raged for up to seven hours but was never visible from any external view.

* This miraculous fire then caused the failure of that one critical truss, which somehow initiated the total collapse of this 47 story building in just 6.6 seconds.

Garcia’s “Dark Fire” piece might as well have been about the combustion of that elusive dark matter, because even if we really wanted to believe his extended string of astounding events, he doesn’t address the primary problems of the collapse dynamics. Instead, he simply states “”a progressive collapse propagates up and material falls freely.” And as with the work of NIST, we’re expected to believe that just saying so makes it true.

Begging Off and Catching On

When questioned more closely about his speculative articles, Garcia claimed in an email that he was done talking and writing about these issues, and that folks would need to rely on the authoritative information provided by Frank Greening and Popular Mechanics. In this plea, Garcia says that Greening’s results jibe with his, although he was unaware of Greening before he wrote his series. It is clear from his “thermodynamics” piece that Garcia might subscribe to Greening’s “Fruit Crumble” theory, where ultra-fine Aluminum and Iron Oxide spontaneously form in the buildings to produce “natural thermite”, distributed in just the right forms and places. It could be that Garcia would buy Greening’s “They Just Forgot to Use the Bolts” theory as well, if it comes to that.(4)

Government scientists get paid to support government policies, particularly in this era of “Bush Science”, and clearly Garcia is willing to play along. But why would political news organizations, like Counterpunch, that present themselves as alternatives to the corporate media, promote these false claims?

Consider for a moment the implications of a breakthrough in the truth about 9/11. If the official story about 9/11 is completely false, as it has proven to be, that fact should call into question those media sources who have helped to cover-up the details over the last five years, even if only through gross negligence of the facts. Whether or not collusion with alternative media was involved, if there is a possibility that the neo-cons actually helped in planning or executing the attacks, then the fact that they pulled it off means that Alexander Cockburn and other (ostensibly) liberal leaders might no longer enjoy the “irreverent and biting” superiority that they identify themselves with. It could be very distressing for some of these rebel leaders to realize that instead of “muckraking with a radical attitude” they have spent years meekly bolstering the status quo.

It appears that these kinds of realizations are inevitable, and actually offer us a chance to improve our situation. In the US, we’ll soon have more opportunity to notice the default states in which we are expected to accept scientific authority no matter how illogical, and accept a cartoonish political framework no matter how impotent. In the next few months, these opportunities will come like “hot volleys” from Manuel Garcia, providing stark examples of how pretentious “experts”, and other types of fictitious, homogenized (ironcrete) leaders give no real alternatives to the problems we’ve seen in the last five years.

If our new Democratic Congress will not call for impeachment or a new 9/11 investigation, will they at least repeal the Military Commissions Act, or the Patriot Act? Will they stop construction of Halliburton’s secretive “detention centers” or put an end to the illegal 9/11 Wars? Will our government’s efforts to protect us from unexplained terrorism ever stop looking exactly like the efforts they would take to protect themselves from us? In other words, will these new leaders, in practice, be any different than the neo-cons? Over the next few months we will realize the answers to these questions, and perhaps then we can begin taking more responsibility for the deception in our lives.


1. There are numerous articles available from LLNL on thermite research. For an example of explosive thermite, see try this one.
2. Therese McAllister explains NIST’s vague, sweeping assumption of fireproofing loss in her presentation here.
3. For effective energy flow from one kg of office furnishings, use estimate of 8.4 MJ/kg (a value for wood -- probably a little higher than for the materials involved).
See Sfintesco, editor, Fire Safety in Tall Buildings, McGraw Hill, 1992
4. Gordon Ross explains some of Greening’s desperate sounding theories here.

Show "Building 7 Falls Slow" by Amanda Reconwith

I hope you realize that video is being shown in slow motion!

P.S. Why do you post disinfo here?

Thats because it's in slow

Thats because it's in slow motion.

Thats a good quality video, wonder what those flash's are ?? there is some flashs to the left of wtc7 as you look at it on the video.

Okay, but the green timer in the corner of the video is wrongly

showing too much time elapsing.

In case you haven't noticed,

In case you haven't noticed, Amanda/killtown/cbBrook/Nico/Reynods/Wood are the 911 disinfo team. The more ridiculous the theory, the more they promote it; the more threatening the evidence to the powers that be, the more they try to discredit it (or conflate it with something silly). They create controversies where none exist, they label solid evidence disinformation while themselves promoting disinformation. They take video clips and doctor them, muddying the waters. They jew bait whenever possible. They attack legitimate researchers.

All of this garbage they insert into posts completely unrelated to their "evidence". They even have a new video out, hoping to snooker people with low-grade intelligence and create division.

No one's falling it.

Why they continue to go along with this charade is beyond me. Everyone knows their game.

they have a video? are you

they have a video? are you serious? oh jesus...........

They also focus obsessively

They also focus obsessively on minor details of the physical evidence, causing everyone to argue endlessly over completely irrelevant (and impossible to prove) theories instead of spreading the truth. As is apparent, these shills have no interest themselves in getting the word out, only creating fake controversies and pushing the most outrageous theories.

kinda like what this blog is? more of the same back and forth..

reminds me of the song "White Discussion" by the band "Live"...

I talk of freedom
you talk of the flag
I talk of revolution
you'd much rather brag
and as the decibels of this disenchanting
discourse continue to dampen the day
the coin flips again and again and again
and again as our sanity walks away
all this discussion
though politically correct
is dead beyond destruction
though it leaves me quite erect
and as the final sunset rolls behind the earth
and the clock is finally dead
I'll look at you, you'll look at me
and we'll cry a lot
but this will be what we said
this will be what we said
look where all this talking got us baby <--!!!!!!!

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Great Song by Live!

Not sure what that has to do with these forums, but I love that one.

His point and the relevance of the song is

that instead of lame flame wars here we should be out making change happen.

I think that's almost as obvious as WTC 7 being a classic controlled demolition.

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

by george i think he's got it!

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Oh man, can't we leave GEORGE out of this!


I need to get in touch with you about DVD's as I am going to start ramping up my street activities very soon.

I hope that you and yours are well.

What do you mean by "jew bait"?

Could you please provide some examples? Thank you.

I believe jew-baiting means

I believe jew-baiting means trying to conflate 9/11 truth with anti-semitism. They make provocative statements like "the Jews did it" etc. While I personally believe Israeli intelligence did play some role, they try to blow beliefs like this into anti-semitism. In fact, it's very easy to discredit groups this way. If you go onto youtube you'll notice many comments saying horrible things about Jews. Here at 911blogger, however, idiots and provocateurs can be quickly silenced with comment voting.

Thanks, Rollo. That

Thanks, Rollo. That explanation makes sense, but I have not seen that group blame Israel, though they may have. That's why I asked for examples. Some here make "the Zionists did it" a continuing theme. I agree that if the evidence leads to Mossad, go with it, but do not like what seems to be an ideological predisposition to blaming Israel. Not only is this distasteful, it can be used to discredit citizens that question the government's story about 9/11m as you say.

The real concern seems to be theories questioning the physical evidence, particularly the question of what hit WTC 1 and 2. I think those are valid questions, based on the fact that a Boeing 767 could not pierce a WTC tower as if there was no resistance.

I'm not sure why this is an issue here. If that first comment is thought to be "disinfo," ignore it. The commenter didn't explain their reasoning, so the comment meant nothing to me. The issue is Ryan's great critique of Garcia's execrable articles, which we all seem to agree with, yet here we are off on tangents, criticizing people that have different ideas.

I'm sick of these petty arguments. I read Jones and Ryan; I read Wood and Reynolds. I draw my own conclusions.

Like that pill, Concrete

Like that pill, Concrete Man. See him, vote him DOWN.

Show "Like that pill, LSD" by Concrete man (not verified)

Well, guess I'm getting coal

Well, guess I'm getting coal in my stocking from this one!

Cheery bye and good night!

Reading your point of view

Reading your point of view for the first time, I don't believe my comment above applies to you. When I wrote about provocateurs above, I mean people who intentionally cultivate controversy and division. In many cases, these are Zionists themselves. All they have to do is post one offensive or racist comment about Jews and all of the calm, rational views regarding Zionism are thrown out.

I am currently researching Zionism and am finding much substance to the allegations. As long as you don't post inflammatory comments, I don't think Jenny should be labelling you a troll or shill.

>When I wrote about

>When I wrote about provocateurs above, I mean people who intentionally cultivate controversy and division. <

Search him at our site search--don't take my word for it. He will always return to the Hoaxacaust, if given the chance. He never changes--if he had he'd admit it instead of calling me an airhead for "outing" him.

You're new here--I'm doing you a favor. But hey, you want to re-invent your wheel, have fun with that.

For your consideration...

Here's classic Concrete Man:'re welcome!

I for one find it entirely hypocritical....

for anyone here to shun or ostracize anyone for their viewpoints....... Whether you agree with them or not is insignificant.

You can rate this down all you'd like.

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Thank you for posting that

Thank you for posting that link. I didn't know he was a Holocaust denier, which is profoundly controversial. However, that still doesn't make him a shill or troll. It means he has very controversial views -- that aren't relevant to 911blogger.

So far in reading his comments, I didn't pick up on any anti-semitism -- only unconventional views regarding the Holocaust.

Will respectfully disagree--

As you have pointed out these views are not relevant to 911Blogger, and knowing that, AND knowing it makes the truth movement look bad, posting lengthy essay's on the Hoaxacoust that makes a passing reader think we share this obsession, is trollish behavior. ESPECIALLY after he's had this KINDLY pointed out to him.

And his response is to call someone who outs him an airhead?

Yes, those are the signs of someone here just for disruption, IMO.

Sorry, rollo, we've had too many problems lately--we're not putting up with anymore than we have to.

Be well.

I take your point and agree.

I take your point and agree. Even if he's not a troller, other disinfo people can take advantage of such views and discredit 9/11 truth. Recommend he finds another theme-specific blog to voice his views.

US-Israeli State Terrorism

Scholars for 9/11 Truth continue to present a far more plausible hypothesis that the WTC was destroyed by explosive demolition with the compelling implication – as asserted by top German and Russian Intelligence chiefs – that only a top National Intelligence operation could have been responsible for the atrocity (e.g. Intelligence associated with US-Israeli State Terrorism).

An excellent blog from Dr. Ryan

This is a satisfyingly thorough dismantling of Manuel Garcia's attempt to offer up some fantasy science to go along with the rest of the 9/11 fantasy. It is not without humor, and anyone who can take on one of the OT apologists *and* make me laugh at the same time is deserving of some serious kudos.

I especially enjoyed the passage on quantum behavior. My refrain recently, when encouraging the liberal artsy folk (like myself) to have the confidence to trust their lyin' eyes is that "It's not quantum physics, people!" Ahh, but as Dr. Ryan makes clear in his dissection of Garcia, it really *is* about that spooky, counter-intuitive realm where laymen should not dare to tread. I stand corrected!

Agreed, casseia, and I will definitely offer to buy Dr. Ryan

lunch or dinner the first chance I get. Not only for this, but for all his other fine work and true patriotism.

I was hoping that someone (Dr. Ryan, Dr.Jones or Jim Hoffman) would get around to deconstructing Garcia's bad non-science fiction. He did a great job AND managed to make me laugh, too.

I hope that you and yours are well.

Are you going to the Arizona conference?

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

To Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones

From the bottom of my heart, thank you both for the hard work, time, effort and risk you are putting into this cause. You guys are both heroes of the movement unlike Fetzer, Reynolds, Wood, Killtown etc who are actively trying to disrupt it.

Please just keep at it -- true seekers must stand together. :)


Via: VideoSift

I didn't know Taft was eaten by Wolves.

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Show "That comment displays rather" by Reality (not verified)

have a sense of humor... that's what celebrating life is about

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Gerald Ford's role in the

Gerald Ford's role in the JFK assassination coverup:,1111-06.htm

from wayne madsen's site

"December 27, 2006 -- As the nation eulogizes President Gerald R. Ford, who died last night in California, no one should lose sight of the fact that it was Ford who helped launch the careers of the two ugliest faces in the George W. Bush administration. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Cheney and Rumsfeld were deep-selected from lower-level positions in the Nixon administration and named as Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff for Ford's White House. After Rumsfeld was selected as Ford's Secretary of Defense, Cheney succeeded his longtime mentor as Chief of Staff."

food for thought

Show "Garcia sounds pretty" by Reality (not verified)

Yeah, Garcia really FEELS the science at you!!!

Yeah, Garcia really feels the science at you!!!

Garcia, just like the Hamburglar guy

Are full of BS! it's because We know that no other steel structured buildings have ever collapsed due to fire, so they have to come with something to try and prove it. They assume that they can get away with it by introducing more STOOOOPID
theories, theories that can't be proven by anyone except them (theories that are so stoooopid, makes them look more and more like the conspiracy theorists each time).
Nice college try there Garcia, but My hook, line and sinker is busted.

Show "Ummmm...don't forget Mike," by Mr. X

Fire theory

No, Mr. X, you are wrong. The NIST report says that the impact of the planes was insignificant:

"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

The entire theory boils down to dislodged insulation. It is a fire theory. It is ridiculous.

"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

Show "True...but was it not the" by Mr. X

Rate of Speed

It's a dead argument because it's been flogged so long it just broke up into little dust particles and went poof. Please detail all the structural damage the jets caused with their impacts at a "high rate of speed" (another really silly bastardisation of the English language by the mass media and other faux intellectuals trying to sound erudite), because not even the bogus NIST report demonstrates such damage.

Show "As to building #7.... No" by Mr. X

Building 7 Demolition Quotes...

Former NYPD Officer & 9/11 First Responder Craig Bartmer:

"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth."


"I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."

Excerpts from video interview w/ Craig Bartmer:


-Reporter Al Jones: "People started to run away from the scene [WTC7] and I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion -- looked like it had been done by a demolition crew -- the whole thing just collapsing down on itself and another big huge plume of gray and white smoke shooting up into the air and then more of the smoke billowing up the street here... so that’s number one, number two, and now number seven that have come down from this explosion."

Live 9-11 Report from 1010 WINS NYC News Radio, presented in the documentary "911 Eyewitness" (Forward to 28:25)

-Emergency worker: "We were watching the building [WTC7] actually ‘cause it was on fire… the bottom floors of the building were on fire and… we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder… turned around -- we were shocked to see that the building was ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out… it was horrifying… about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that… we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground… we were in shock."

Live 9-11 Report from 1010 WINS NYC News Radio, presented in the documentary "911 Eyewitness" (Forward to 31:30)


-Guns & Butter Radio interview - April 27th 2005:
Hosted by Bonnie Falkner
Guest: Indira Singh (Ground Zero Emergency Worker)

Bonnie: How long did you work as an emergency medical technician and exactly what is it that you were doing (at ground zero)?

Indira: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 where Building 7 came down...
...we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations… IV stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations ...just trying to have an organized space. What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.

Bonnie: Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?

Indira: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."

Excerpt from above is heard approximately ten minutes into the interview.


-Columbia Journalism Review – May/June 2003, by Thomas Franklin

Excerpt from an article written by award winning photographer, Thomas Franklin, who snapped the world famous photo of firemen raising the American flag at ground zero. In the article Franklin explains that all of ground zero was evacuated less than an hour before WTC 7 was demolished at approximately 5:20 pm on 9/11:

"Much of what happened to me on September 11 is a blur, but this moment I clearly remember: It was 4:45 p.m., and all the firemen and rescue workers were evacuating Ground Zero after word came that a third building -- WTC 7 -- was ready to fall. I had only a few frames left, and an entire day's worth of pictures to develop, so I prepared to head back to New Jersey."


- CBS News Anchor, Dan Rather, makes comments after Building 7 falls down:

“Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”



-WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein's comments about Building 7 in the PBS documentary, America Rebuilds (2002):

“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”


In the same documentary, America Rebuilds, a clean up worker at ground zero uses the term "pull" when preparing for the controlled demolition of Building 6: (Use of the word “pull” as slang for “demolish”)

Unidentified Construction Worker: "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six."

Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.”


Larry Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges: Says "pull it" meant to evacuate firefighters, but there were no firefighters in the building:


"Of course in some circles of the controlled demolition industry 'Pull' is used to mean that you actually demolish a building."

-Benjamin Chertoff, Researcher for Popular Mechanics, on Coast to Coast AM - March 5, 2005



"This is work of man. This is a hired job. [Larry Silverstein] said it himself. You hear him saying 'Pull it' down."

-Controlled Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko


Danny Jowenko owns a demolition firm called "Jowenko Exposieve Demolitie B.V.". Information about his company's qualifications can be found posted on their website:

He's also listed on's website as being one of their licensed blasters and associates":

Controlled Demo Expert Danny Jowenko confirms that Building 7 was brought down on purpose:


Structural Experts Say:
"WTC-7 was with the greatest probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts."


Video clips of World Trade Center Building 7 being "pulled" on 9/11:

7 minute video presentation on the destruction of Building 7 on 9/11...

Please reread Dr. Ryan's article and if you still think Garcia's

"theory" has any credibility go back to middle school and pay attention in science class.

All these people that support the government farce are becoming increasingly ridiculous and irrational.

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

apparently you guys don't understand sarcasm

I hope satire doesn't fall of deaf ears as well.

garcia feels the science at you is right.

FANTASTIC NEWS !! Τζέιμς Φέτζερ was on Greek TV

James Fetzer appeared on TOP RATING greek TV SHOW:

(greek letters don't work in

(greek letters don't work in my blog, but do here:)

The most popular TV telecast ζούγκλα "Zougla" (means "Jungle") here in Greece. He was invited from the most famous journalist in Greece Μάκης (Efthimios) Τριανταφυλλόπουλος "Makis Triantafilopoulos". (Triantafyllopoulos) Millions of Greeks was informed about the "inside job" for the first time from the media!

James Fetzer spelled in Greek writing: Τζέιμς Φέτζερ ;-)

PLEASE Email: and get us a copy of the programme on GOOGLE VIDEO!!

Chief Dis-Info Agent on Greek TV

I wonder what "space-beam" is in Greek...

on topic.. WOW, thank you

on topic.. WOW, thank you for demolishing Mr Garcia's "reasoning". VERY GOOD. Thanks for posting it here..

Dr. Ryan?

What is with the "Dr Ryan". He doesn't have a PhD, he doesn't even have a masters, just a BS degree in Chemistry from some university he never identifies.

I think you are confusing him with Jack Ryan from the Tom Clancy novels.


Kevin Ryan does not call himself 'Dr.' which is what counts.

All you are doing making an implied ad hominem against KR.

If you do not address the logic and evidence and argumentation in the article then anything else you say is simply bs. An attack on the person. The fallacy of argumentation implicitly expressed in your little comment is the opposite of the appeal to authority. So I bet you believe everything Garcia has to say simply because he is a Ph.D.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" (Goethe)..... a paraphrase from V: Cast aside the illusions. Only when you are finally hopeless can you truly be free.


No, I was just addressing all the people who were calling him "Dr. Ryan". I am not sure how pointing out that they are identifying him incorrectly is an attack.

An excellent blog from Dr. Ryan

Agreed, casseia, and I will definitely offer to buy Dr. Ryan

I was hoping that someone (Dr. Ryan, Dr.Jones or Jim Hoffman) would get around to deconstructing Garcia's bad non-science fiction.

Please reread Dr. Ryan's article and if you still think Garcia's


You opined: "He doesn't have a PhD, he doesn't even have a masters, just a BS degree in Chemistry from some university he never identifies"

Your words condemn you as exhibiting shill-like behavior... if it walks like a duck, waddles, has wings and quacks a lot....

Of course.... I trust that pointing out shill-like behavior is not taken by you as an attack......

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" (Goethe)..... a paraphrase from V: Cast aside the illusions. Only when you are finally hopeless can you truly be free.

I don't have him confused with anyone

but I will admit to misidentifying him out of haste and carelessness.

Kevin Ryan has a B.S. in chemistry and should not be addressed as Dr. Ryan.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.


The Reverend Kevin Ryan

Okay, I'm a little overgenerous with the honorifics. From now on, I'll stick with "His Holiness, Kevin Ryan."

Lawrence Livermoore / Los Alamos parallels

Garcia not only works for the government, he works for a very interesting organization ... Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Garcia’s employer, appears to be where explosive thermite was invented, and it continues to be a focus of research there

Good point. This parallels what's going what with a clique of 9/11 researchers connected to Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), where directed-energy weapons were invented and continue to be a focus of research today.

This Los Alamos clique is actively trying to deny and misdirect others from examining the use of directed-energy weapons in 9/11. They engage in the same kind of name-calling that Garcia does . . . the parallels are ominous to be sure.

One word


Thank you, and a question

Thank you for a great critique of Garcia's articles. I have a question about "The Physics of 9/11."

Garcia seems to assume what he purports to prove -- free-fall speed.

I continued this particular calculation, floor by floor, as a sequence starting from rest: free fall for 3 m, impact delays transit for 0.01 s and decreases descent velocity by 0.5 m/s, free fall for 3 m, transit delay and velocity decrement as before, and so on.

Am I reading this correctly? He starts out with free-fall speed on the first falling floor -- that is the 16 mph initial speed, right? -- and then has the building to continue to fall, slowed only by his assumption as to what the floor impact causes. Isn't this the question he is supposed to be answering -- how much resistance would be caused = how much delay?

Show "Mr. Ryan, would you care to" by Mark Roberts


Mark, I challenge you to a game of rock-scissors-paper.

Now, I have no particular expertise in this area, so you should be at a decided advantage. After all, you spend your days shaking an empty fist at this forum.

Look at you, you "prominent debunker," you....

Show "Ah, I see you mistake a" by Mark Roberts


Have you helped a first responder lately?

And why are you so predictable? Any day now you'll be calling me Bubba will! You can't help yourself...

Mark Roberts

isn't a troll - he's just a nutjob.

You're funny!

Six of one, half dozen of the other, eh?

Show "Jenny, you call me" by Mark Roberts
Show "Rock-paper-scissors" by James (not verified)

What are the odds? What are they?

Fuel oil released from a broken fuel line needed to exhibit the features of an intelligent migration, pumping up from multiple tanks on the ground floor, through the damaged pipe in the southwest corner of the building, traversing a distance of 250 feet across the fifth floor without any spreading or transfer loss, to pool very selectively beneath truss #2 in a mechanical room on the east side of the building.
In Garcia, there is speed, incredible speed, a building goes from 0-16 in a nanosecond, quicker to 16 MPH than a missile.

That just described above..what are the odds as compared to planting demolition explosives in WTC 7? Keep in mind no steel structure has collapsed due to fire..AND why haven't We been allowed to see that "scooped out" area photograph of WTC 7 and PM did? What are the odds for the public to see those photographs?
What are the odds that they had the DNA of the alleged hijackers..not only the DNA they found that was used to identify the hijacker of one plane striking the trade centers...The real chance here is..where did they get a previous sample of the same DNA to match the one they found. Those odds are about as even as Myself saying Jimmy Hoffa hijacked that plane and I have his DNA to match DNA found by investigators....what are the odds?
You wanna debunk with no evidence?
How about this; the governments story is the reason troops are fighting and dying in a quicksand war in Iraq that can't be won with more troops without causing further escalation into greater areas. Dissenters have a possible trip to a foreign country with no civil liberties, thanks to a pre-9/11 written Patriot Act. Government spying on it's citizens, the chance of coming across a suspected terrorist; 3 in 10000.
The flip side of that equation is the chance of catching a dissentor; much better odds for the government.
WMD in Iraq? How much credibility does this government have when that was really a lie? And the one that Al-Queida and Saddam were connected? They were about as connected as the lie the government put out there.
So these are facts I put out there, and these are just portions of the Project For The New American Century that will be brought out. The odds of a new investigation are what We are banking on and every time a "debunker" (those who stick with the "official" story) comes out with something more outlandish, such as Mr. Garcia's theory, the more We know 9/11 truth movement is gaining ground.

Rock-Paper-Scissors Mark Roberts?

Answer my question, Mr. Roberts

Is Garcia not assuming what he purports to prove, free fall speed?

Mr. Roberts, I assume you will return . . .

here to see if Mr. Ryan responded to your challenge to a debate. I assume you will read my question. If you do not answer, I will assume you cannot. Please answer my question. I really want to know.

Let me repeat what I asked Kevin Ryan:

Garcia seems to assume what he purports to prove -- free-fall speed.

I continued this particular calculation, floor by floor, as a sequence starting from rest: free fall for 3 m, impact delays transit for 0.01 s and decreases descent velocity by 0.5 m/s, free fall for 3 m, transit delay and velocity decrement as before, and so on.

Am I reading this correctly? He starts out with free-fall speed on the first falling floor -- that is the 16 mph initial speed, right? -- and then has the building to continue to fall, slowed only by his assumption as to what the floor impact causes. Isn't this the question he is supposed to be answering -- how much resistance would be caused = how much delay?

My question is this:

Is Garcia not assuming what he purports to prove, free fall speed?

Show "Ningen, I didn't post here" by Mark Roberts

Thank you for the response

OK, "almost free fall speed," or whatever speed was observed. He is still assuming that speed, not proving it could occur without some kind of added energy.

The initial free fall is what Garcia says drives the collapses of the lower floors at the speed he assumes. If there are enormous lateral and torsion forces that prove what his model does not, he needs to explain. These forces and their effects cannot just be assumed. "The building shattered" is not a scientific argument.

I'm sorry your response is hidden. Your arguments are civil and amenable to rational response, and should be encouraged.

"Prominent Debunker" ROTFL @ You!

A legend in your own mind, huh mark? I would have never heard of you if not for 911blogger. You are funny, if not very bright.

"And don't forget that large portions of the tower cores remained standing, however briefly, after the bulk of the buildings collapsed."

Is that the same 'core columns' the omission commission denies existed?

You are a prominent joke, and I would loves seeing Kevin mop the floor with your pathetic ass. Although I think he has better things to do than debate a mentally deficient shill.

My one & only reply/comment to you.


i would certainly love to see a debate between you and Kevin Ryan. You say you have no technical expertise, i am wondering , what is your day job , Mark?

yes Mark, what is your day

yes Mark, what is your day job?

I'm a tour guide in New York

I'm a tour guide in New York City.

and what motivates you to be

and what motivates you to be on this site so much lately? does the 9/11 Comission need your help in selling the "official" story? has it gotten that bad? do you feel an obligation to sell the "official" story? or do you just enjoy talking to us "nutbags"?

There are a few good comments here...

Simuvac correctly points out that NIST's theory of collapse initiation for the towers has nothing to do with the damage caused by the aircraft, other than the assumed fireproofing loss.

Ningen notes that Garcia starts with free-fall, and then tries to prove near free-fall. Strange but true.

Mark Roberts believes he has gained prominence of some kind, and I invite him and Manuel Garcia to apply for the National 9/11 Debate at this link.

And sorry, I don't have a PhD (although I've supervised a few). But that is the challenge with 9/11 - to actually think about the facts without looking for self-proclaimed experts to give us easy answers. Anyway, who has a PhD in Long Strings of Things That Never Happen?

No need to apologize, Mr. Ryan, and I still want to buy

you lunch or dinner as a big thank you for all you've done and continue to do.

We all know that one doesn't need a PhD. to think logically or differentiate real science from pathological science.

I hope that you and yours are well.

Thanks again.

Show "Debate" by James (not verified)
Show "That would be very" by Mark Roberts
Show "Thanks for the invite," by Mark Roberts

Please consider it

The National 9/11 Debate is the perfect place for this kind of thing (is it Pastor?) Mark. Surely with all the time and effort you have put into "debunking" (aka supporting) conspiracy theories, you can spare a weekend to put us in our place. And I’m sure that with your “prominence”, you could easily convince Garcia to come as well.

If not, please give a reason. You and James (BA Russian Studies Bennett?) may be entertained by all of this, but many are not, including the victims of the 9/11 Wars.

Show "Whassup" by James (not verified)
Show "Whassup" by James (not verified)
Show "Whassup" by James (not verified)
Show "Entertained" by James (not verified)

What part of "would not collapse" did you not understand, Mark?

"I'm also fascinated by the idea that "NIST's theory of collapse initiation for the towers has nothing to do with the damage caused by the aircraft, other than the assumed fireproofing loss.""

Earlier I quoted the passage from the NIST report that explicitly states this is what the government scientists believe. Isn't an explicit statement from NIST enough for you? Or are you that challenged that you don't understand this (let me quote NIST again):

"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

Did you catch that first part, Mark? They would "not" have collapsed with just the airplane impact.

You know what else is surprising, Mark? NIST couldn't replicate the collapses (you know, that whole "scientific method" thing where you try to replicate results as proof):

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

When you debate the tourists during your day job, Mark, I hope you invoke the magical properties of computer modeling. NIST did.

Thank you, Mr. Ryan, for the work you do. I'm sorry you have to spend any time at all exchanging words with people like Mark Roberts. You've suffered enough.

Show "Simuvac, you, Kevin Ryan," by Mark Roberts

I have a better idea, Mark

Why don't you just write your own critique of Kevin's thorough, well-written blog entry above? Why do you insist on an in person debate?

Debating in writing is actually a much more intellectually honest form of debate because each person is able to provide support for their statements and assertions, if such support exists. It also allows the audience to digest the material at their own pace, checking the references cited at their leisure. Either side could easily lie throught their teeth during a live debate and the audience would have to go look up any and all controversial claims made by either side after the debate concluded in order to determine which side was lying and which side was telling the truth. This is a task that few viewers of a live debate will undertake.

A written debate, by contrast, allows the audience to more accurately judge each debate participant's credibility and persuasiveness, and determine the winner.

If you can't even attempt to debunk Kevin's critique of the Garcia articles in writing, you don't deserve an in person debate with him. Go ahead. Give it a shot.

He has to get a different

He has to get a different department to create the critique, kinda outside of his field of expertise...  

He needs to be in-person to be effective.  And I doubt that this person is even the same guy, with Fetzer running around with aliases and the like... 

Show "Seve, I agree entirely about" by Mark Roberts

Your reply shows either (A)

Your reply shows either (A) how little you really understand about most of the people that are interested in 9/11, or (B) just how much of a shill you are.

(1) Anyone who needs accurate information about anything must research it for themselves. That research generally always involves reading well researched and referenced, thoughtfully written papers, and deciding which papers you believe. Written debates are historically how science has progressed. One scientist researches and publishes his or her findings. Other scientists either verify those findings or debunk them, in writing. The original scientist gets to respond, in writing, and the process continues. Luckily, the web has given us the opportunity to make that written exchange much more rapid and allow research on these topics to progress at a much faster rate.

I, for one, read, and still read, everything I can by people that attempt to debunk 9/11 Truth. I can't speak for everyone here, but I don't want to think our government was behind this event. I eagerly awaited the Popular Mechanics book, which I purchased a few days after it came out, but was thoroughly disappointed. It was completely unpersuasive and unscientific, and as I have shown in the past, actually provides expert testimony that proves that the Twin Towers were brought down using controlled demolition (you don't even have to look anywhere outside that book to conclude it was CD). To date, nothing I have read regarding, most importantly, the collapse of Building 7, has even come remotely close to convincing me it was something other than CD. The same goes for the Twin Towers.

(2) People can have command of the material they "profess to have studied" but may not have the requisite command of the spoken english language, the debating skills or the nerves to make their points efficiently or succinctly. This deficit, however, may have nothing to do with the veracity of the information they are presenting. It may simply be one or a combination of a lack of skill, lack of debate practice, lack of a fair forum, or other factors. Most intelligent people, on the other hand, can get their thoughts down on paper in a coherent manner if given some time. This is one reason why exchanging ideas in written form is much more intellectually honest than exchanging ideas in a live debate.

(3) It's unfortunate you hate writing about this stuff. This is how science progresses, and this is how ideas are exchanged. Welcome to the real world.

Show "Seve, my reply was based on" by Mark Roberts

Hey Kevin...

There's someone in this blog that would love to debate you about Controlled Demolition.

He's a dishonest individual with an obvious agenda, but I'm sure you could make short work of him.

Click Here

The Time For Debate Is Over


That link doesn't lead to anything but the first page of your blog comments. Even copying the link and pasting it doesn't take you to a specific post.

nanostructured energetic materials: specifically explosives

Assignee Name and Adress: The Regents of the University of California
In reference to this quote, there is much work proceeding regarding nanostructured materials and explosives at LLNL, where Garcia apparently works (according to the above post):

"Garcia not only works for the government, he works for a very interesting organization in terms of the best hypothesis for what happened that day. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Garcia’s employer, appears to be where explosive thermite was invented, and it continues to be a focus of research there." Just some of the data from an abstract is quoted below:

The present invention involves sol-gel manufactured metal-oxide-based energetic materials and a process for manufacturing the energetic material utilizing sol-gel chemistry. The manufacturing process of this invention solves many of the prior problems associated with the prior fabrication of metal-oxide-based energetic materials (explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics). As pointed out above, energetic materials consist of fuel and oxidizers, which are intimately mixed, but may also contain other constituents such as binders, plasticizers, stabilizers, pigments, etc. The prior problems associated with mixing of the constituents and forming of these materials into desired shapes have been significantly reduced, if not eliminated, by utilizing sol-gel processing in accordance with the present invention.
We have invented a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry

Negative points?

Why did this post get a negative rating?

If you are going to give these things a negative vote... please explain why. so we can discuss your reasoning.

I thought this was a very good post

ho ho ho... Nice digg FeO...

ho ho ho...

Nice digg FeO...   


could they be more blatently obvious?

Where do they get the smarts to ask a guy who is involved in the advancement of thermite / thermate technology to write an article to debunk Kevin Ryan? They really think we are stupid if this research is legit? Do they have any idea that we investigate every person who supports the government line.

I'm utterly astounded by this.

don't know... maybe this guy is sending up smoke signals to us..... hey... look over here!

Blatently [sic]

Blatently [sic] obvious?

Okay, JJJames, then you won't have any trouble providing evidence

1) That thermite or any of its derivitaves were used in any way at the World Trade Center. You will be the first to do so.

2) That Garcia was in any way involved with the "advancement of thermite/thermate technology."

Derivitaves [sic]

People in glass houses and all that, Mark.

Show "Ooh, spooky" by Mark Roberts

Marky Mark

Do you understand the implications of the technology that they have developed? Nanotechnology?

Nanotechnology allows for the creation of very small particles.... of several different elements.... so when you combine these elements they react much more quickly and efficiently.... such as in thermite / thermate..... Increasing its effectiveness dramaticly....

according to the above post this company has also developed a manner to better control the placement of this type of material.... suspended in a gel or putty.... this in effect allowing for the creation of a thermate / thermite shape charge. This will greatly enhance it's ability to be used in demolition as well as many other applications like cutting steel underwater.

I'm pretty sure that the material that was recovered and tested by Steven Jones as well as the many other oddities found at the WTC site add up to equal some pretty decent evidence that something strange was going on at the WTC on 9/11. Something that should have been investigated but was not. The residue found by the tests that were run should be able to pinpoint the things which left those residues. Science is amazing. If they can do it on CSI... this ain't hard.

But you can keep clicking your ruby slippers together.... but there's no going home at this point..... so quit cohorting with the crazy flying monkeys.

If this company works on developing nukes.... they are as government as it gets.... they don't let independent companies do as they wish in that department..... Garcia is bought and paid for.... I just hope he was cheap.... cause he certainly wasn't worth it.

Companies which develop nukes could care less about killing 3,000 people..... they know that iff one of their bombs drops.... they are killing at least 100,000!


I know you are out there.... do I get a reply?

This proves, better than my

This proves, better than my test in another thread that, contrary to what Ron Weick asserts, Mark DOES NOT always respond to posts addresed to him. Mark has to have read your post by now, JJ.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


I want to see what Mark's intellect shows here :(

You want to see "intellect"

You want to see "intellect" out of him? You'll be waiting awhile for that one...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I See

What i'd really like to see is the look on his face as he get "POWNED"!

Ryan's obvious intellect shows here

I am struck after reading this incredibly detailed rebuttal from Kevin Ryan about the debunker crowd's take on Kevin;

"He's just a water researcher, you can't believe anything he wrote about 9.11".

Perhaps his discipline was water, but he's clearly a highly intelligent and reputable scientist.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry

Show "Craniac, the reputation of" by Mark Roberts

face it

Read the article and it is right LLNL is bad and anti anything that is American. I say that directly to you LLNL and to anyone who is working with or for them. There is no doubt you are doing evil.

Show "You're right, Jack. Science" by Mark Roberts

Critique of - an example of unsound reasoning

Hello Mark, read on if you are interested in rational debate....

Anyone interested in the WTC demolitions might happen to go to and click on the menu item "WTC (demolition)" on the left side of the screen. A list of objections then appears, and we click on the first option, called "Progressive collapse doesn’t seem to happen outside of a terrorist incident". Let's see what it has to say about this, seems interesting....

Alas, once we actually read the article, it starts of with "L'Ambiance Plaza was planned to be a sixteen-story building with thirteen apartment levels topping three parking levels" Still in construction, "At the time of collapse, the building was a little more than halfway completed. In the west tower, the ninth, tenth, and eleventh floor slab package was parked in stage IV directly under the twelfth floor and roof package. The shear walls were about five levels below the lifted slabs (Cuoco, 1992). The workmen were tack welding wedges under the ninth, tenth, and eleventh floor package to temporarily hold them into position when they heard a loud metallic sound followed by rumbling. " In this temporary and relatively precarious construction phase, "Kenneth Shepard, an ironworker who was installing wedges at the time, looked up to see the slab over him "cracking like ice breaking." Suddenly, the slab fell on to the slab below it, which was unable to support this added weight and in turn fell. The entire structure collapsed, first the west tower and then the east tower, in 5 seconds, only 2.5 seconds longer than it would have taken an object to free fall from that height. " So let's see, a 16 story building, not even half-finished, collapsed due to instabilities in the relatively delicate construction phase it was in. Clicking on the link to the source of this information, we arrive at a web page were we can read "An unusually prompt legal settlement prematurely ended all investigations of the collapse. Consequently, the exact cause of the collapse has never been established. The building had a number of deficiencies; any one of which could have triggered the collapse. The question, however, remains which one of these failed first, triggering the rest of the failures and ultimately total collapse" Iin other words, this example is completely useless since the building was still in consruction and presented numerous deficiencies. Deficient temporary connections and instabilities contributed to the sudden collapse. None of this circumstances were present in the WTC1&2 collapses. One interesting thing to note, however, is that the picture of this collapesed building in the website shows a rather large pile of rubble, with the floors visibly stacked on top of each other. There has been no pulverisation of concrete such as that which occured on 9/11. This is one of the most salient features of a controlled demolition where high-powered explosives are used.

Another example of an unfinished bulding follows, the Bailey's Crossroads disaster at Fairfax County, Va. It is ironic that this is used as an example that is somehow relevant to the WTC collapse since, clicking on the source of this information we find, reading down the article "In March 1973, a dramatic multistory building collapse involving premature removal of shoring occurred at Bailey's Crossroads in Fairfax County, Va. The construction pace for the 26-story project was quite rapid; one floor slab completed per week. At the time of the collapse, concrete was being placed on the 24th floor, and shoring was simultaneously being removed from concrete at the 22nd floor. The sudden, progressive collapse carried the weight of the failed concrete of the 22nd, 23rd and 24th floors all the way to the ground level. The failure killed 14 construction workers and injured 35.

Several investigations came to the same conclusion for the Bailey's accident. The concrete had simply not attained sufficient strength to carry the construction loads that were placed on it. The shear strength of the slabs would have been acceptable if the concrete had reached its specified capacity before the shoring was removed. "

Again, none of these things are in the slightest bit relevant. It is interesting that no picture is supplied for this disaster, but there is indeed a picture if we go to the original article. The article in the site makes us imagine that it somehow ended up like the WTC site, but this is what happened:

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
At Bailey’s Crossroads, concrete was placed on the 24th floor while shoring was prematurely removed from the 22nd, causing a progressive collapse down to the ground level.

So nothing like WTC. No pulverisation of concrete, no global collapse, no hot spots in basements, etc...

There follows another example of finished building this time, a nice refreshing change, a 6-storey building - the Lian Yak building - which according to the source, however, " root and main cause of the collapse lay in the grossly inadequate design " Again, none of this is even remotely relevant to the WTC, which were incredibly robust biuldings.

Again, this article is totally irrelevant to the WTC disaster, the only interesting features being that there is no pulverisation of concrete but indeed a large debris pile when building collapse due to gravity assisted reasons.

In short, all these examples are entirely irrelevant when it comes to analysing the global progressive collapses that occured in WTC.

Hope this helps you and others to see past these flimsy "debunking" efforts that try to obscure the fact that there are many things wrong with the official account.


ps My apologies to those that have aleady seen this

Show "All those words, and for" by Mark Roberts

i'll try again....

and what motivates you to be on this site so much lately? does the 9/11 Comission need your help in selling the "official" story? has it gotten that bad? do you feel an obligation to sell the "official" story? or do you just enjoy talking to us "nutbags"? how empty must your life be?

More rhetorical chicanery from our Mr. Roberts

My you are entertaining, Mr. Roberts, I do believe you studied rhetoric in college, yes?

At some point in the future, if I get that bored, I may deconstruct your rather transparent attempts to confuse the issues and obscure the facts and the science.

Another question, if you please: Please explain how a 47-story steel-framed building can completely (and symmetricaly) gravitationally collapse in less than 7 seconds into its own footprint. Once again, please do not simply point to a link (other than to cite sources) to answer the question. Thank you.

The truth shall set us free. (unless you're abetting a cover-up, in which case you're going to jail)

Love is the only way forward.

All these words, Mr. Roberts

go to show that the website is at the very least being intellectualy dishonest. Let me explain this particular example of the history of "progressive collapses"

Once upon a time, Jack decided to build a multi-story appartment block. Unfortunately, he wasn't a good architect, so his design was seriously flawed (see Lian Yak building above). Not only that, but the concrete he was using and the temporary supports on the floors he was using were not properly set (see Bailey's Crossroads ex. above). So one fine day, as the laws of physics dictate, that makeshift, badly-designed appartment collapsed, the temporary supports and premature removal of shoring giving way, with one floor collapsing on top of the other, leaving a heaping pile of rubble.

Some time later, Jack was surprised to see that his building collapse was given as an example that would help illuminate the reasons behind the collapse of the WTC, some of the most robust and well-designed buildings in the world. People were saying that just because his makeshift, badly designed and constructed appartment building collapsed, this somehow raised the possibility of a symmetrical, global collapse of the WTC, in spite of there being no possible parallelisms between the two buidings, apart from them having collapsed.

In fact, Jack noted that there was no pulverisation of concrete, or pools of extremely hot metal in the basements, or a symmetry in the collapse, when his building crashed down to the ground. Yet somehow some people still insisted in drawing some parallels between the two...

So next time Jack makes a model airplane, using bits of wood and tied with shoestrings, the big manufacturers of commercial aircraft like Boeing et al better be paying attention in case a new phenomenon governing aerodynamics is uncovered unwittingly by Jack.

The "progressive collapses" in the article is completely different to the WTC collapses, in both form and manner. Only the name "progressive collapse" gives the two a physically and logically unsound link.

As for the paper you link to by Bazant, it is based on a simplified one-dimesional model, which is basiccally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The release of the finite element analysis and their subsequent "tweakings" would set the matter straight and give us a better indication as to the likelihood of failure in the WTC towers. An amusing insight they share is, from their introduction,

"The destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11/01 was not only the biggest mass
murder in the U.S. history but also a big surprise for the structural engineering profession,
perhaps the biggest since the collapse of Tacoma Bridge in 1940. No experienced structural
engineer watching the attack expected the WTC towers to collapse. No skyscraper has ever
before collapsed due to fire. The fact that the WTC towers did, beckons deep examination."

I would agree with everything except fo the last assumption. It seems you, Mr. Roberts, in your indignation towards people seeking the truth, are not as surprised as structural engineers.

Perhaps it is a better idea to question authority, Mr. Roberts, and not honest people trying to figure out the truth. We have no ulterior motive but knowing, unfortunately the people involved in this cover up have motives which have perversed their scientific principles.


911myths, indeed

Exactly. Thank you for stating this. I've felt this way about these so-called examples of debunking for some time now.

Often, what 911myths does is simply suggest an alternative explanation. It does not debunk, but says, "Hey, this piece of evidence could represent something else." Sure, if you take it out of context.

I enjoy Mark's attempt to explain the multiple eyewitness accounts of secondary explosions in the towers. He basically suggests that because people in the floors below the impacts could smell kerosene, that meant jet fuel had descended the rare elevator shaft that went from the top of the tower to the bottom, exiting to explode on several floors, including the ground floor over one thousand feet below. And, this unlikely scenario happens even though we know most of the jet fuel burned up outside the towers in the initial impact.

Again, one has to ignore the other features of the collapses in order to find this scenario even remotely plausible. Common sense says that this passage from the Commission Report is ludicrous:

“A jet fuel fireball erupted upon impact and shot down at least one bank of elevators. The fireball exploded onto numerous lower floors, including the 77th and 22nd; the West Street lobby level; and the B4 level, four stories below ground” (285).

Brain Tumor

And I'm betting that your friends Brain tumor was God's will..... Where do you think brain tumors come from?

Keep drinking your fluoridated water

Science tends to lead to more bad things than good.... because good science doesn't make money... the only time you see good science is when there's money to be made.

We can split the atom... we can send people to space... but we can not find a way to make cars get even 50 miles per gallon?..if not 100!

Good science gets burried

It ain´t just the Bush Admin

How many Democratic members of the incoming Congress endorse these crackpot conspiracy theories that 9-11 was an "inside job"?

Thanks Kevin for your attention to detail exposing these jerks!

Great article, it is so important that someone like yourself takes the time to debate/de-bunk these "Bush scientists" as it gives people like me the ability to do it as well!

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!

Kindest regards John Bursill