Smithsonian supports 9/11 official story but calls NIST ‘fatally flawed’


The aluminum/water explosion theory  ignores forensic evidence.

The aluminum/water explosion theory ignores forensic evidence.

By Craig McKee

The theory is untenable. It defies science and common sense.

No wonder mainstream television (the Smithsonian Channel, owned by CBS) has happily offered it as an explanation for how the Twin Towers could come down without the use of explosives on 9/11. But this theory comes with a twist – it rejects both the official story and the notion that 9/11 was an inside job.

The theory, posited by chemist Frank Greening and metallurgist Christian Simensen in the “Twin Towers” episode of Conspiracy: The Missing Evidence, is that fires from ignited jet fuel melted the aluminum airplanes and that the resulting molten aluminum came into contact with water from the buildings’ sprinkler systems. This, according to the theory, set off massive explosions that ultimately brought both skyscrapers down.

“It was just a matter of time before the whole thing blew up — and down come the towers,” Greening says in the program.

We’ll get into why this theory is absurd and the above statement is false in a moment. But what is noteworthy about the position taken by Greening and Simensen is that it concedes that the final report about the towers’ destruction released by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in 2005 is “fatally flawed.”

This is what the 9/11 Truth Movement has been saying since the report came out.

But the twist gives those who can’t buy the NIST report an opportunity to avoid questioning the very premise of 9/11 – that it was a Muslim terror attack on the United States. Essentially, it is saying, ‘Hey, you have problems with NIST? Not to worry; you can conclude it’s a worthless report while remaining all comfy in the belief that planes and jet fuel brought the buildings down anyway.’

This is the one thing that is clever about the Greening/Simensen theory – how it attempts to rationalize the impossibility of the official story with an explanation that avoids the notion that explosives were planted in the buildings.

Where the cleverness runs out is with the theory itself.

Greening and Simensen say that the presence of the plane wreckage in the towers was something that NIST should have considered.

“That’s a huge omission in their work,” Greening declares. “I feel that until those tests are repeated, with an aircraft included in the office, their results are essentially meaningless.”

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth founder Richard Gage, who was interviewed for the show, says in an interview I did with him for an AE911Truth article that the aluminum/water explosion hypothesis is impossible: “This hypothesis utterly fails to explain any of the forensic, eyewitness, or video evidence from that day.”

Gage explains that this evidence includes:

  • Symmetrical explosions moving down the face of the towers at near free-fall acceleration
  • Lateral ejections from all facades — from massive explosions hurling four-ton structural steel sections laterally at 60 mph, landing 600 feet away
  • Unignited nano-thermite incendiaries found in the World Trade Center dust
  • Billions of previously molten iron microspheres also found in the dust
  • Near free-fall acceleration of the buildings
  • 90,000 tons of concrete pulverized into a fine powder – in mid-air
  • Missing stack of 110 “pancaked” floors

“These features point to controlled demolition,” Gage contends, adding that if the explosions hypothesized by Greening and Simensen had taken place, the destruction would be asymmetrical and could not totally destroy the building.

“We saw the shattering of almost every structural element, one from another. A couple of aluminum/water explosions, even if the right conditions existed, could only account for a couple of explosions at or below the point of jet plane impacts.”

Further, Gage rejects Greening’s claim that once the destruction began, the weight of the upper section would crush the part below the impact points.

“Even if there were an aluminum/water explosion that dismembered all of the columns, it would still have required an intact block of massive weight to be there to overcome those columns and drive the rest of the building down,” Gage says. “But that upper 15-floor block, above the point of jet impacts, is completely destroyed in a telescoping collapse in the first four seconds before there is any downward movement.”

OTHER SCIENTISTS WEIGH IN

According to physicist and professor emeritus Steven Jones, the molten metal pouring from the South Tower, as seen in videos 10 minutes prior to its collapse, is not aluminum, as Greening and Simensen claim. Molten aluminum would not have looked anything like the bright yellow liquid that was observed flowing down that tower’s side, Jones maintains.

“When it is molten, aluminum has only a very faint glow, which can be seen in a darkened room, but in daylight the appearance is silvery,” he points out.

Jones also challenges the Greening/Simensen argument that aluminum and water could have even produced an explosion as well as Greening’s contention that crushed concrete, gypsum, and aluminum oxide would have been catalysts.

“Where are the experiments?” Jones asks. “We performed experiments pouring molten aluminum onto crushed drywall (gypsum) mixed with water, and we saw no reactions whatsoever. If aluminum reacts explosively with water, then where are the experiments to show this?”

Retired chemistry professor Niels Harrit says, “Very specific conditions are required for any explosion of the kind described by Greening and Simensen to take place. And those conditions were not present in the towers.”

Harrit challenges the notion that all the aluminum from the planes would have become molten: “It is ridiculous to envision that a major part of the airliner aluminum would not burn in the blast after total fragmentation during impact and fuel combustion.”

Moreover, he contends, “It is not the aluminum/water which explodes in such a scenario. It is hydrogen — conceived from this reaction — mixed with oxygen. To get a big explosion, you would need a large volume of gas created. That is, not only should the aluminum assemble in a great number of pools, the hydrogen/oxygen should as well be contained in more-or-less airtight spaces.”

Harrit also says there could not have been sufficient water for a reaction with molten aluminum, because the buildings’ sprinkler systems were not functioning on the floors near the plane impacts.

“There was no water pressure at these floors,” he argues. “They then bring into the argument the drinking water from the water coolers found in the offices . . . . Come on, be serious.” (Greening did cite contributions made by water bottles, Coke machines, and kitchenettes.)

Engineer Ken Jenkins, a co-founder of the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance, says a sequence of explosions would have been required for the destruction that video cameras captured.

“Successful building demolitions require high degrees of precision in the relative timings of the many separate explosions,” Jenkins points out. “The sequence must be timed within fractions of a second throughout the building. We observe this precision timing in a number of the videos of the explosive ejections in the towers.”

LOWER EXPLOSIONS EXPLAINED?

Not only do Greening and Simensen claim that they have succeeded in explaining how the towers came down, but they also assert that the aluminum/water explosion hypothesis accounts for the more than 100 reports from first responders of explosions in the lower part of the towers. Yet in their interview, the two scientists don’t even try to explain how multiple explosions in the lower parts of the building — including in the lobby and sub-basements — could have been caused by molten aluminum and water.

The program concludes by contending that, based on the aluminum/water explosion hypothesis, there must also have been exploded droplets of aluminum oxide in the World Trade Center aftermath. But then the producers backpedal, noting that nothing can be proven, since the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has denied access to materials removed from the site.

Jones states that traces of aluminum were indeed found in the World Trade Center dust, which is to be expected when thermitic reactions take place.

“Thermitic reactions produce aluminum oxide, usually as a whitish powder — not droplets — per my observations after my numerous experiments with thermite,” Jones explains.

A HOSTILE TONE

“More troubling than the insupportable claims of this lame hypothesis, though,” says Gage, “is the ongoing pattern of deception” employed by numerous mainstream film producers who have interviewed him over the years. At least 95 percent of the evidence he shares with them gets omitted from the end product.

“The Smithsonian used only one small section of the broad swatch of damning information I provided — the evidence for explosions — and they used it to set up their aluminum/water explosion hypothesis. This was completely unethical. It’s all manipulation. It would seem they are purposely deceiving their audience.”

The one-sided slant of the program is readily apparent throughout its voice-over. The narrator describes the evidence presented by AE911Truth — and the 9/11 Truth Movement’s use of that evidence — as “the outlandish claims of the theorists” and “fanatical rumors” by those with “an obsession for online conspiracy sites.” In a half-hearted jab at the official story, the narrator asserts that the failure of the NIST report to explain the collapses provided “fertile ground for conspiracy theories.”

In the voice-over, we hear an unrelenting attack on truth-seekers, which includes this pot shot: “For many of those directly affected by the disaster, claims of government involvement are deeply offensive.” To prove that point, the producers air portions of their interview with firefighter Bobby McGuire, who lost his nephew in the disaster. In these clips, McGuire sides with the official theory, ridicules evidence for controlled demolition, and calls those who question the party line “conspiracy theorists” who are “out there.”

The narrator then throws another low blow at Gage, accusing him of “attempting to gain mainstream acceptability with a combination of science and conjecture.”

After watching the “Twin Towers” show online, Gage observed that, despite what the producers want the public to believe, the evidence of controlled demolition involves only science and no conjecture.

That bias is most blatant and egregious when the narrator, referring to Greening’s interest in figuring out what happened on 9/11, implies that the chemist came to a conclusion before beginning his scientific analysis: “For [Greening] . . . the question of government conspiracy was never an option.”

The voice-over piles on still more praise for the Greening/Simensen hypothesis — heralding it as the breakthrough discovery that “would change our understanding of the disaster forever.” And it compliments Greening’s computer model, which he says supports the so-called pancake theory, for having “dispelled the conspiracists ideas about controlled demolition.”

How did it do that? We’re never told.

Gage asks only that “everyone take a serious look at the forensic evidence and at the eyewitness and video testimony that has been thoroughly documented by AE911Truth and other truth-seekers — and then come to their own conclusions.

“We don’t have conspiracy theories,” Gage says. “We have solid, scientific evidence.”

37 comments

    1. I’m not surprised at all that the Smithsonian Channel, which is an obvious Gatekeeper for Official Government Propoganda, is not above issuing conflicting opinions which intentionally serve to further confuse people and to futher mask the true version of events. Not surprised in the least.

  1. I would have expected nothing less than lies from the Smithsonian about 9/11. In doing this they have added their name to the list of liars and scum who are trying to cover-up the truth.

    1. To employ the “esoteric interpretation” DRG talked about with Sunstein’s paper, I wonder if there is a deeper aim: to show people how transparently absurd the official story, that explosives were not used, is.

      For one thing, people who arent’ necessarily truthers, but astute observers over time, will see that this A/W explosion theory wasn’t (to my knowledge) even put forth within the first decade after 9/11. They will see that the official story keeps changing and changing. Just like how within the first decade, NIST itself abandoned the initial Eagar/FEMA pancake theory, and settled on “thermal expansion.”

      Then there are the absurdities of the “theory” itself, which Craig delineated in the article.

      Then again, people in the USA are mind-bogglingly gullible, so maybe this new “theory” will keep them satisfied.

      1. Dyani Bahe,

        Your comment is utterly bereft of substance. An assertion hanging mid air with no support naturally falls and extinguishes itself.

        Go suck a lollipop.
        \\][//

  2. So smithsonian are arguing aircraft Al and water combusted to bring the three towers down in uncontrolled demolition.
    I imagine the mass explosions in sub basement WTC before first impact and molten steel ‘running down the channel rails like in a foundry..like lava in a volcano’ in the pile weeks after will queer that pitch when it comes to closing argument.
    Why does CBS remind me of Disney remind me of Wisner remind me of ‘limited hangout’ ??
    And why do the carpet baggers of state science end up the ones making outrageous untested theory a habit?
    Who pays them for this ? When all available evidence of CD already exists to be properly examined in criminal court under oath – or even a fairly presented documentary – instead we get the Pinocchio Sunder creatioNIST ‘new phenomenon’ where they didn’t even TEST for explosive/incendiary residue..and now Greening covering the expanding arse of the official lie with a hypothesis so LAME it makes the goose bump. This will get the JREEFERS -sorry, international skeptics – laughing in the aisles! Has Greening no shame! RGage and the other scientists cited presenting CD read like sentient adults in someone else’s idiot fantasy.

  3. …and the the second tower to come down from the aluminium/water explosions, its antenna ripped right through the facade of WTC7 and ruptured the fuel lines… just ask Larry Silverstein! LOL!

    Many years ago at JREF, I corresponded via private message with Greening when he was posting as Apollo20. I think I’ll log in to that account and revisit that correspondence.

    Greening had initially been a person in defense of the original official explanation. Then he engaged in a form of sandbagging at JREF where he posted anonymously as Apollo20, as a curious-but-swinging-toward-truther new poster at first. Then he outed himself as Frank Greening with the same words: “NIST report fatally flawed.” He never actually sided with “inside job,” but it was a major sting for JREF for Greening to say the official report was fatally flawed, since the chief posters there (Mark Roberts, Ron Wieck) were insisting that the NIST report had no flaws at all and was a perfectly sound explanation for what happened. This was cause for celebration within the Truth community, that one of the lead spokesmen for the OCT seemed to be publicly going Truther.

    Now it’s obvious what his role was: throw the movement a bone, hide for another near-decade, then re-emerge with this bizarre nonsense to affirm that NIST is flawed but that white men in suits and ties had no involvement in the ‘attacks.’

    1. Fatally Flawed.
      False Flag
      Free Fall.
      Theres a photo of a giant part of that same antenna on Liberty st – the opposite direction entirely to #7 (AFTERMATH:Joel Meyerowitz) In fact the caption sais “the antenna from the North tower on Liberty Street.”
      Liberty Street.
      That old chestnut ‘gravity’ at work again.

  4. I’m watching the Smithsonian propaganda now. I’m at the 5 min mark right now, just after Shyam Sunder says, “The reason it collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged.”

    So, I’m guessing that from this point (I’ve got it paused right now as I type) it’s going to go down the road of “THIS explanation was wrong, BUT… the collapses are still explainable without pre-planted explosives nonetheless.”

    1. They speak of a huge explosion and fire that destroyed an aluminium melting/welding factory thanks to water seeping in, as evidence for the A/W theory.

      “…and there was nothing left of the factory.”

      Really? What’s that still-standing structure thingamajiggee I’m seeing on the screen just as you’re saying that?

      http://tinypic.com/r/16ar4h5/8

        1. Regarding Greening’s/Semensen’s theory:

          “…it would be wonderful, especially if it would shut up these imbiciles who believe in a conspiracy theory.” – Bob McGuire

          1. Moments after the above screenshot, Greening begins his concluding remarks regarding his Aluminium-Water (A-W):

            In science there’s a very useful principle called Occam’s Razor. Which says that, in developing a theory, keep it simple. I believe in the case of the World Trade Center, we had molten aluminium, we had a fire, we had everything you need to create a terrible explosion, and bring down the buildings. That’s the simplest solution, and I believe it’s the correct solution.

            Actually, just by reading the Wiki entry for O’s R, (and yes I realize Wiki is not a neutral source on political subjects but OR itself is not a political topic), it’s obvious Greening is applying the principle wrong. The principle is a problem-solving principle that transcends many fields; science is one of them. The general principle says, basically, “among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.”

            So Greening’s A-W theory fails even on that general level. But within the field of science, Wiki says this:

            “As a logical principle, Occam’s Razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data.

            Not just the simplest explanation, but the simplest explanation that accounts for the available evidence. In general, the entire official 9/11 story, and in particular the ever-varying explanations for the “collapses,” do not at all address the available evidence, for the many reasons Gage listed that were highlighted in the article.

            Greening’s A&W Rootbeer Theory holds no water.

          2. He says he doesn’t know of any firefighters that believe in the conspiracy theories. Fire Fighters for 9-11 truth anyone?

  5. . The dry skin of OCT stretches so thin over deepstate carcass now, the bones of the LIE poke right thru. Covered in the nano thermitic material riddled DUST.
    So, while they knit wool over our eyes at one end with idiot theories like ‘Al/water’; the lie unravels at the other by virtue of the fact “explosions” had to be addressed in the official narrative.
    Appropriate to this Smithsonian farce, is the conversation at boilongfrogs “….discusses official lies, whistleblowers, silent witnesses, and how the majority falls for official fictions and dismisses truth. We will also be discussing another common tactic used by the deep state and its tentacles to promote official-lies and cover up truth: Muddying the facts by bombarding people with conflicting, contradicting, and confusing supplementary lies before moving on to their next officially-narrated official lie”
    That’s all this is. Institutionalised lying.

  6. For whatever reason, the official technical explanation for the Twin Towers’ destruction is not only a technical fraud, but so evident a fraud that people with an average intelligence and no formal technical education can understand it with minimal guidance, as long as they are motivated to look for it. Savvy 9/11 activists can easily induce this motivation by showing how the macroscopic features of the video record of the Twin Towers’ destruction overwhelmingly favor the controlled demolition over the alternative hypothesis of destruction by airplane impacts and fires. And of course, the conspiracy of Building 7 yields a compelling reason to examine the videos in question with an open mind.

    Therefore, it makes sense for the Master 9/11 censors to stealthily encourage the creation and development of better illusions. Even though this silly aluminum/water magic will convince few engineering professionals, it may provide a slightly more complex scenario than the official nonsense. As such, it may make it harder for the above-mentioned people with an average intelligence to understand how thin and transparent the official technical cover-up is. The mere existence of this aluminum/water theory may actually be sufficient to plant in the mind of ordinary people the possibility that even if the U.S. government formulated a technically erroneous explanation, somebody else may have corrected it.

    Overall, it is doubtful that this Greening/Simensen addendum to Donald Duck’s book of engineering will significantly impact 9/11 activism. However, should other “scientists” come up with other soft criticisms of and corrections to NIST’s work, NIST may suddenly “realize” that “the investigation should be reopened to make room for their ideas and findings,” yielding a new technical cover-up in the form of a thick hodgepodge of technical gibberish that even smart engineers with expertise in high-rise construction and explosives would have difficulty falsifying. This would make 9/11 education more complex, since the transparency of the Twin Towers’ technical cover-up is an important contribution to the ease of teaching the 9/11 censorship.

    Love,

  7. Hahahaha, I read this ridiculous “theory” of Christian Simensen’s a couple of years ago and laughed it off as the nonsense it is. It is indeed remarkable that the Smithsonian should pick up this turd and run with it.
    \\][//

  8. Greening and Simensen….two Zionists grasping at straws (drinking water in office coolers reacting with “molten” aluminum and exploding…..riiiiight) in a desperately feeble attempt to cover for the Zionists they KNOW are really behind 9/11, AND IT’S COVERUP. This geyser of LIES is ready to blow, and personally…..I can’t wait to see it.

  9. Demagoguery for really, really really stupid people…

    Here is some fact, and some science…condensed for the simle perusal..

    “”The only peer-reviewed papers that provide a physically plausible mechanism for collapse of WTC 1, 2, or 7 are papers that conclude with controlled demolition – a result consistent with the fact that in over 100 years, no high-rise steel frame building has ever collapsed from fire alone. “”
    Timothy E. Eastman, Ph.D., Physics Group Manager for Space Science Support
    Heliospheric Physics Laboratory NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

    ————————————–

    “The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center].”

    Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng – Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden. Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988).
    ———————————————

    “Serious technical investigations by experts seem to be lacking from the official explanations.”

    Larry L. Erickson, BS Aeronautical Eng, MS Aeronautical Eng, PhD Eng Mechanics – Retired NASA Aerospace Engineer and Research Scientist. Conducted research in the fields of structural dynamics, aerodynamics, aeroelasticity and flutter. Recipient of NASA’s Aerodynamics Division Researcher-of-the-Year Award. 33-year NASA career. Member, American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics.

    ————————————————————————–

    Science says…
    Law of thermo-dynamics
    “If you have a flame of 750 degrees, you can hold that flame under steel forever and you will NEVER reach a high enough temperature to bend steel, let alone melt it.”
    Robert Podolsky – Masters in theoretical physics, Physicist /engineer. Systems analyst, Air Force Avionics Lab, Coast Guard electronics
    —————————————————————–

    Law of aerodynamics
    “”I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93. I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s. The aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.”
    Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown.
    ———————————————————–
    Law of motion/momentum
    Commander James Clow, MS, U.S. Coast Guard (ret) – Retired U.S. Coast Guard officer
    “No matter how one views the videos of the Towers and Building 7 collapsing, the laws of physics MUST hold true. If F=ma appears to have been violated (e.g., free-fall collapse of the buildings at nearly 9.8 m/sec/sec), then something is seriously amiss and one must start looking for the “other hand” hidden beneath the table to discover what is really happening”

  10. “What really concerns me is we’re beginning to live in a society that is rebellious against science. It’s important that all of us with the technical expertise speak out on the 9/11 issue.”
    Roland Angle P.E., Civil/Structural Engineer
    ————–
    “ Everyone with relevant expertise who has studied the issues knows that the WTC skyscrapers were brought down in controlled demolitions. No architect or engineer has ever presented and defended the official story before an assembly of peers.”

    Dr. Niels Harrit, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Nano-Science Center, University of Copenhagen Lead author of “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11,” published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal in 2009
    —————————————–

    Raymond L. McGovern – 27-year CIA veteran. Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates (NIE), the consensus reports of all U.S. intelligence agencies.Responsible for preparing and presenting the President’ Daily Brief (PDB) to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and for providing intelligence briefing to their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff…

    … “It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with compelling evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited… It is also the case that the whole ‘war on terror’ was based on a prior deception.”

    ————————————
    David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society

    ….” the “official” assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus “

    —————-
    Robert H. Waser, BS ME, MS ME, PE – Retired Research and Development Engineer, U.S. Naval Ordinance Lab. 33 year career. Retired Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Maryland.

    “The ‘official’ 9/11 story seems to violate laws of physics and engineering analysis, specifically with respect to the collapse speed and the temperatures of molten iron. The only explanation that seems to be in accordance with all observations is controlled demolition”
    ———–

    George M. Campbell, PhD – Retired Research Scientist, Los Alamos National Laboratory, specializing in plutonium chemistry 1963 – 1991. Author and co-author of several journal articles on plutonium chemistry.

    “Pictures of collapse are not consistent with a burning building. I believe that someone is covering up the facts for some reason.””
    ——————————-

    Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech).

    “They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official “investigations” have really been cover-up operations.”
    ——–
    “Lt. Cdr. Bernard J. Smith, U.S. Nay (ret) – Retired carrier Naval Aviator and former aircraft accident investigator.

    “From my several years experience as an aircraft accident investigator for the U.S.Navy, I am appalled at the basic principles of investigation being ignored; ie, premature destruction of evidence, reliable eye witness accounts ignored, etc. To allow the official version to be the final word in this planned event, as is evident from the AE9/11 investigation, would be a major disservice to the victims and the nation.”

    ——————

    Melvin A. Goodman, PhD – Former Division Chief and Senior Analyst at the Office of Soviet Affairs, CIA,1966 – 1990. Senior Analyst at the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, State Department, . Professor of International Security at the National War College 42-year Federal government career, primarily with the CIA, Department of Defense and State Department.

    “The final report (9/11 commission report) is ultimately a coverup. I don’t know how else to describe the final report.”

    ——————
    “It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics”

    Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 20-year Air Force –

  11. ++++Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Retired U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown. Decorations include the Distinguished Flying Cross and 32 awards of the Air Medal. Aircraft flown: Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, Lockheed C-130H Hercules. 10,000+ total hours flown.

    “Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.”
    —————-
    +++Lt Col. Guy S. Razer, MS Aeronautical Science, U.S. Air Force –Instructor; U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School. Air Force weapons effects expert responsible for appropriate aircraft/munition for target destruction to include steel and concrete superstructures. Aeronautical structures flight test engineer.

    “ I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. “—————-
    +++++ Commander Ted Muga, BS CE, U.S. Navy –Commercial aircraft flown: Boeing 707 and 727. 7,500 hours flown. Civil Engineer.

    “Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machines. And they’re designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there. And to think that you’re going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it’s bordering on impossible.”

    —————————
    TOP GUN… Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret)
    Former Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School (Topgun). 20-year Navy career.

    “I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described. I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. “
    ——————–

    Joel M. Skousen – Former U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot. Commercial pilot.

    “The issues of the penetration hole [at the Pentagon] and the lack of large pieces of debris simply do not jive with the official story, but they are explainable if you include the parking lot video evidence that shows a huge white explosion at impact. This cannot happen with an aircraft laden only with fuel. It can only happen in the presence of high explosives.”
    ————————————————————————————————————-
    Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project. 30-year Army career. Instructor, undergraduate and graduate courses in environmental science, environmental engineering, nuclear physics, emergency management. Staff physicist at the University of Illinois

    “There were definite explosions inside the thing. You talk to Willie Rodriguez, you talk to the police and the fire, my guys – no two ways about it. It’s on the radio communications. Everything else out there. It happened. The Pentagon, same thing. No aircraft hit the Pentagon. Totally impossible! You couldn’t make the turns with a 757. You couldn’t fly it in over the highway. You couldn’t fly it over the light poles. You couldn’t even get it that close to the ground because of turbulence.”
    ————-
    Michael Scheuer, PhD – Former Chief of the CIA’s bin Laden unit (aka Alec Station), the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorism Center 1996 – 1999. Special Adviser to the Chief of the bin Laden unit, September 2001 to November 2004. 22-year CIA career.

    “It (9/11 investigation) was a whitewash and a lie from top to bottom”

  12. Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer

    “I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. … [A]nomalies poured in rapidly: the hijackers’ names appearing in none of the published flight passenger lists, BBC reports of stolen identities of the alleged hijackers or the alleged hijackers being found alive, the obvious demolitions of WTC 1 and 2, and WTC 7, the lack of identifiable Boeing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon”
    —————–
    Wayne Madsen –U.S. Navy Intelligence Officer, electronic surveillance and security. Assigned to the National Security Agency and the State Department.

    “After talking to individuals in the intelligence community, in the military, foreign intelligence agencies…air traffic control community, the FAA, I came to the conclusion that what we saw happen on that morning of September 11, 2001, was the result of a highly-compartmentalized covert operation to bring about a fascist coup in this country”
    ——————–
    Col. James R. Uhl, MD, MC, U.S. Army (ret) – Retired U.S. Army Physician. Served in several theaters of operations, from Viet Nam through Iraq. Former Member, Certification in Military Medicine Working Group. 38-year Army career.

    “There is a well-organized cover-up of the events of 11 Sep 2001. The 9/11 Commission was a white-washed farce. There is evidence that US Government officials had advance knowledge of and are probably implicated in the events of 9/11.

    A huge body of physical evidence has been ignored, suppressed, and ridiculed by the media and by our Government.”
    —————–
    Commander Dennis Henry, U.S. Navy Reserve (ret), BS CE, PE – Retired from U.S. Navy Reserve, Civil Engineering Corps after 20 years of service. Retired Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Missouri. 34 years of service as a City Engineer

    “Being a civil engineer and understanding the laws of physics, I know that a building cannot fall at free fall speed without the floors already falling also giving no resistance. “
    ————————
    Capt. Stephen M. Gann, PhD, U.S. Navy Reserve (ret) – Analytical Chemist. Former Licensed Professional Engineer with 18 years experience as a nuclear chemist.

    “During clean up at site zero, there was radioactivity detected, radionuclides that could only be present from a fission event. I would, as a nuclear chemist, like for this particular anomaly to be properly explained.”
    ———-
    Major Jon I. Fox, U.S. Marine Corps – Former Marine Corps fighter pilot, including interceptor pilot. Retired commercial airline pilot, Continental Airlines. Aircraft flown: Boeing 727, McDonnell Douglas DC-10, LearJet. 35-year commercial aviation career.

    “Recent research proves that explosives were used at the World Trade Center. Flight paths and maneuvers of the aircraft involved at the Pentagon and Shanksville do not match NTSB released flight data recordings. “
    —————-

    –The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…”

    -9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

    -9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue..

    -The 9/11 Commission chair said the Commission was “set up to fail”

    -The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”

    -9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

    -9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”. When asked in 2009 if he thought there should be another 9/11 commission, Cleland responded: “There should be about fifteen 9/11 commissions”

    No wonder the Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 – Bob Graham – and 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey are calling for either a “PERMANENT 9/11 commission” or a new 9/11 investigation to get to the bottom of it.

    Here is the SOURCED link to these people who had the integrity to put truth before ignorance, and speak out for truth. While you babble ignorance here, to protect lies and ignorance.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/911-commissioners-didnt-believe-government.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s