Bob McIlvaine on how his son’s death points to controlled demolition


mcilvaine-bob

This article is a lightly modified version of a piece I just wrote for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which you can read here. I thank the staff at AE911Truth for making it possible for me to speak with Bob McIlvaine and write this article.—CM

By Craig McKee

Bob McIlvaine and his family are not alone in having suffered a devastating personal loss on September 11, 2001. The loved ones of the nearly 3,000 victims of the destruction at the World Trade Center know what he has endured for the past 15 years.

But McIlvaine is different from most of these families in important ways. In addition to his unwavering and often lonely fight to expose the complicity of the U.S. government in this false flag attack, he has strong forensic evidence that his 26-year-old son, Bobby, was killed by a powerful explosion as he was about to enter the lobby of the North Tower. That evidence is corroborated by the accounts of many FDNY members, police officers, and workers who reported explosions in the lower parts of the towers before the buildings were destroyed—some of them even before the first airplane struck.

In a recent interview, McIlvaine said his son’s body was one of the first to be recovered and taken to the New York City morgue on that day. He explained that he has been able to reach more definitive conclusions about the details of his son’s death only since conferring with the doctor who had examined his body at the morgue.

The meeting, which McIlvaine recalls happening in 2006 or 2007, provided evidence that a huge explosion — and not the North Tower’s eventual demise — was responsible for killing his son. According to McIlvaine, the wounds described by the doctor indicated that his son had been hit by flying glass from some kind of massive blast. Bobby’s face was damaged beyond recognition, he had lacerations all over his chest from flying glass, and he had post-mortem burns. In fact, the blast was strong enough to literally blow Bobby out of his laced shoes (they were not on the body when it was brought to the morgue).

“My final summation is that he was walking into the building, and before he got into the building there was a huge explosion, and of course the force of it just threw him back into the open area,” McIlvaine says. “That’s why he was picked up so quickly, because the EMTs came down there so quickly. Someone had gotten him out of there and to the morgue before the towers came down.”

It is the nature of Bobby’s injuries that convinces the elder McIlvaine that the explosion had nothing to do with the airplane hitting the tower. That conclusion is at odds with the explanation put forth by the 9/11 Commission, which attributed explosions in the Twin Towers’ lower floors and basements to fireballs of exploding jet fuel coming down the elevator shafts and blowing out.

“He wasn’t hit by a fireball, he was hit by a detonation,” McIlvaine contends. “In a detonation, the blast is first and then followed by the heat.”

He points out that the official account credits the supposed fireball with blowing out floors in different parts of the building — leaving many untouched floors in between the damaged ones.

“It blew out the 72nd floor, it blew out the 23rd floor, it blew out the lobby, it blew out all sorts of floors in the basement, and it even destroyed parts of the PATH [rail] station more than 200 feet away. For one fireball to do all that — well, that’s one powerful fireball.”

This becomes even more impossible, he argues, when you consider that the tower was divided into three vertical sections. Each elevator (except for the basement-to-penthouse maintenance elevator) serviced only one section. Thus, someone travelling from top to bottom would have had to take three different elevators. This configuration would have prevented fuel from pouring down elevator shafts and causing the destruction.

“It’s impossible for a fireball to come down that far and create that kind of damage.”

What made the horror of September 11 even worse for the McIlvaine family initially was that they had no information about their son and didn’t know if he was alive or dead. Adding to their uncertainty was that he didn’t actually work in the towers; instead, he worked for Merrill Lynch in an office building across the street from the World Trade Center. So McIlvaine thinks it’s possible that his son was either on his way to a Merrill Lynch seminar that was being held on the 106th floor of the North Tower or was cutting through to get to his own office.

A Canadian who worked for Merrill Lynch in 2001 and who was at the World Trade Center that day contacted McIlvaine two years ago. The man explained that he was heading to the same conference on the 106th floor about the same time that Bobby would have been approaching the building. But he had stopped for a coffee on the way — a decision that he thinks might have saved his life. While ordering his coffee, he heard a massive explosion in the North Tower lobby.

McIlvaine says he doesn’t tell his son’s story that often anymore because most people just don’t want to hear it. Even the 9/11 families don’t want anything to do with the idea that the event was, as he claims, perpetrated by their own government.

“People look at the United States as a father figure, and they just can’t believe their father could do something that evil.”

372 comments

  1. The problem is that A&E911 runs a limited hangout. Not only do they cling to the scientifically discredited theory of explosive nanothermite but they refuse to discuss who was responsible and why. Think about it. The most prominent 9/11 organization–which will not allow its staff or even volunteers to talk about any other theory than that it was done with nanothermite–will not address the crucial issue of who was responsible and why. That is simply appalling.

    More serious research was presented this weekend during the second Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference than you could find in all the articles, presentations and conferences sponsored by A&E911. Part 1, “How it was done”, can be found here: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-midwest-911-truth-conference-ii.html
    and Part 2, “Who was responsible”, here: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-midwest-911-truth-conference-ii.html It’s time to stop pretending A&E911 is a serious organization.

    1. …scientifically discredited theory of explosive nanothermite…

      This is not a valid statement. On the contrary, the use of nano-thermite is the only thing scientifically credited. If you doubt their conclusions, then you indirectly accusing Steven Jones and Neils Harrit of scientific fraud.

      His paper can be found here.

      1. Travis said:

        “If you doubt their conclusions, then you indirectly accusing Steven Jones and Neils Harrit of scientific fraud”

        Thank you, Travis, I was just getting to that.

        Not only would Steven Jones, Neils Harrit, Jeffry Farrer, and several others be guilty of scientific fraud…..they would also be guilty of deliberately deceiving the public and treason, mass murder and obstruction of justice.

        That’s why I think Fetzer is full of crap about Nano Thermite being disproven.

        There is no way to say that Jones et al are just incompetent.

        The way they present their evidence, they would HAVE to be willful deceivers.

        1. None of them is a chemical engineer. T. Mark Hightower is a chemical engineer. I am not here to deny that they found nano-thermite chips in the tiny samples of dust they studied. I am here to point out that the far more extensive dust sample studies by the US Geological Survey found a host of elements that would not have been present in the quantities and correlations which they discovered had this not been a nuclear event. Virtually the entire first part (Part 1) of the second MidWest 9/11 Truth Conference (which sockpuppet2012 refuses to review) focuses on the use of nukes on 9/11, including two civil and structural engineers and other experts in this area. The response on this threat reflects the massive ignorance of those who claim to be students of 9/11 yet refuse to respond to the extensive proof that this was done using mini and micro nukes. You are far beyond incompetent and do not even understand that Steve Jones is a nuclear physicist who has to know that this was a nuclear event. So, yes, absolutely: I AM CALLING THEM OUT!

            1. Good question, Travis!

              How many first responders, policemen and firefighters and others died of or were diagnosed with radiation poisoning?

              Most of the truckers who hauled the hundreds of thousands of tons of metal and dust and debris away should have died of or been diagnosed with radiation poisoning.

              1. Good God, man. Are you really this ignorant? Here are some paragraphs from the article that Craig decided to finesse, which of course was his right. He can publish or not as he chooses:

                The use of mini or micro nukes, which have dialable radii and can be directed upward, means that the destruction of the Twin Towers qualified as the use of “Directed Energy Weapons”, which, according to Judy Wood, are devices that provide far more energy than conventional and can be directed. Set at 100′ in the core columns, they would have had a diameter of 200′ for buildings that were 208′ on a side. Their use enabled the destruction of both buildings from the top down in an effort to simulate collapse. But they were being blown apart in every direction and converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. And this appears to be how it was done as the USGS dust studies substantiate.

                . . . .

                Other arguments could be made, of course, including that the final spire of the North Tower seems to run counter to the use of nukes. But even at Hiroshima, the scaffolding of a lone church remained after the enormous blast had done its damage. And these were mini or micro nukes, whose use has also been confirmed by the debilitating medical maladies incurred by first responders and residents of the area, which include non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid, pancreatic, brain, esophageal, prostate and blood and plasma cancers at rates far above normal, which Jeff Prager was among the first to point out and where recent estimates have placed the number affected at close to 70,000.

                Go to http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2016/09/america-nuked-on-911-book-to-targeting.html for the article that I proposed he publish. Even better, go to Part 1 of the conference I have linked.

                1. There was no mushroom cloud.

                  You can tell in the videos of the collapse that the destruction was mostly gravitational. Nuclear events create so much heat that the air becomes buoyant and rises upwards.

          1. “the second MidWest 9/11 Truth Conference (which sockpuppet2012 refuses to review) focuses on the use of nukes on 9/11”

            Yep!…..I refuse to “review” it, and I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess that Adam Syed also has no intention of “reviewing” your incredible nonsense.

            The reason I feel justified in saying that, is because I noticed that me and Adam Syed said practically the same thing, using the same words in a comment only one minute apart, without being able to see each other’s comment.

            At 1:41 a.m. I said:

            https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/mcilvaine-controlled-demolition/#comment-43841

            “You are the one trying to divide and discredit the strongest most respected members of the Truth movement”

            …..and at 1:40 Adam Syed said:

            https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/mcilvaine-controlled-demolition/#comment-43840

            “The fact that you attack the strongest, most credible 9/11 truth organization is all I need to know”

            Truthful minds think alike.

            1. You and Adam are only two among many weak-minded mediocrities that can be led by the nose by those who impress you with their credentials, such as Jones, Ryan and Harritt. You long ago gave up whatever meager capacity you may have had for critical thinking to become mindless stooges who swoon at the least gesture of those you mistakenly admire and adore. PATHETIC!

              1. Fetzer, if nuclear devices were used, there would have been high radiation counts for months. Geiger counters are cheap these days, and no doubt that everyone that lives in Manhattan could easily afford one.

                Where are the high Geiger counts?

                Why are some of the first-responders still alive?

                Where was the mushroom cloud?

                1. Travis, they banned the use of geiger counters in New York after 9/11. Why don’t you do yourself a favor and actually watch Part 1? You are forcing me to conclude that you are just a dull and dimwitted as the obvious trolls who are protecting A&E911. Why do I have to spoon feed you when the experts are speaking for themselves as participants in the 9/11 conference?

          2. None of them is a chemical engineer.

            Another false statement from Jim Fetzer. James R. Gourley is a co-author of the Jones and Harrit paper, and is a matter of fact, a chemical engineer. From NeilsHarrit.org:

            James R. Gourley B.S. Chemical Engineering, University of Oklahoma, graduated with Special Distinction

            As if a Chemical Engineering degree provides any special distinction over PhDs in Physics and Chemistry anyway.

            1. So now Travis is denying the laws of material science, which establish that, in order to destroy a material, an explosive must have a detonation velocity that is equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material, where the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200m/s, in steel 6,100m/s, where the highest attributed detonation velocity for nana-othermite is only 895m/s? Perhaps if this guy he cites had been of a higher degree of competence and considered the points Mark and I have published repeatedly, we would not be still chasing after ghosts thanks to A&E911!

              1. So now Travis is denying the laws of material science, which establish that, in order to destroy a material, an explosive must have a detonation velocity that is equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material

                Or you could just flash-liquify the steel with highly exothermic nano-thermite.

                1. Let’s see. Niels Harrit estimated that it would take 29,000-tons of nano-thermite, which would have turned the Twin Towers into the world’s largest grain silos. Now this guy wants to paint over 300,000-tons of steel with a mystery substance. He still hasn’t watched any of the presentations. I think they need to find a higher class of [phrase deleted] if they want to convince anyone here.

                  1. Niels Harrit estimated that it would take 29,000-tons of nano-thermite…

                    That is a lie. There is no way the he could arrive at that figure. The mass of all of the core-columns combines is only 22,000 tons. It would be absolutely asinine to estimate the mass of thermite needed over this figure.

                    This “29,000 ton” figure is a lie, and a cheap tactic to discredit the highly plausible nanothermite theory.

                    1. Perhaps Harrit said 29,000 pounds and Fetzer multiplied it by 2,000.

                      In this video, Myth Busters was barely able to melt through the roof of a car with half a ton(1,000 lbs.) of thermite, while Jonathan Cole was able to melt through steel beams with a cup full of homemade thermite…..not even nano-thermite:

                    2. Like the rest of the critics of mini nukes, Sockpuppet2012 doesn’t do any homework. Embarrassing, but exactly what we have come to expect here from those whose name we are not allowed to speak. See T. Mark Hightower, “Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit/. It was originally published on 27 August 2011:

                      “Harrit (chief author of the 2009 nanothermite paper) presented a calculation for how much thermitic material would have been necessary to explain the presence of the many tiny iron-rich spheres in the dust (assuming that a thermite reaction was the source of the spheres).

                      “He gave a range of numbers, based on lower and higher concentrations of the thermite formulation. His lowest figure amounted to 29,000 metric tons of thermitic explosive per tower – a value hundreds of times greater than the calculation for conventional explosives. His “conservative” estimate (based on 10% iron-oxide in the thermitic material) was 143,000 metric tons of thermitic material that would have been placed in each tower. But let’s be realistic: How could the perpetrators drag in and plant over 100,000 tons of explosive without being seen? Even 29,000 tons is hard to imagine and would have been rather difficult to put in place unnoticed.”

                    3. The amount of energy required to raise steel to its’ melting point is is given by:³
                      Q=cmΔT [c=specific heat][m=mass][T=temperature]
                      And the constants can be found online. The specific heat for steel is .466(J/gK)¹ and it’s melting point is 1371°C.² We can assume the initial temperature is 72°F, or about 23°C. For simplicity, let us find how much heat it takes to raise one kilogram of steel to its’ melting point:
                      Q₁=0.466(J/gK)(1kg)(1371-23)°C
                      Q₁=0.466(J/gK)(10³g)(1348)°C
                      Q₁=628.17(10³)J
                      Q₁=628.2(kJ)

                      Now to energy required to melt steel is given by this equation:
                      Q₂=mΔH°
                      The latent heat of fusion [ΔH°] for steel is 260(kJ/kg)⁴.
                      Q₂=(1kg)260(kJ/kg)
                      Q₂=260(kJ)

                      Now the energy to raise the temperature of steel [per kilo] to its’ melting point and melt it is:
                      Q=Q₁+Q₂
                      Q=(628+260)kJ
                      Q=888(kJ)

                      So what is the enthalpy of the thermite reaction again? Well:
                      2Al+Fe₂O₃→Al₂O₃+2Fe ΔH°=851(kJ/mol)

                      So how many moles of thermite does it take to melt on kg of steel?
                      Q=X(ΔH°)
                      X=Q/ΔH°
                      X=888(kJ)/851(kJ/mol)
                      X=1.04(mol)

                      So how much does one mole of thermite weigh?
                      2Al+Fe₂O₃
                      2(27g)+(56g)₂(16g)₃
                      54g+112g+48g
                      216g

                      So you can melt one kilogram of steel with 216g of thermite. This means that you completely melt the 25,000 tons of core columns with only 5,400 tons of thermite. You Jim Fetzer want us to believe that Neils Harrit PhD would come up with the ridiculously high figure of 29,000 tons of thermite necessary to demolish the towers?

                      I say that this is a lie, and this is also slander. This ridiculously high figure is damaging to Dr. Harrit’s reputation.

                      ¹https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity#Specific_heat_capacity
                      ²http://www.onlinemetals.com/meltpt.cfm
                      ³http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-work-energy-d_292.html
                      ⁴http://www.azom.com/properties.aspx?ArticleID=863

      2. By the way, STATEMENTS are true or false. ARGUMENTS are valid or invalid or, in the case of INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS, proper or correct. So you are wrong on the facts and on the terms you are misusing. But you are still the only one showing any interested in the actual evidence.

      3. Per A&E documents….”it takes 0.13 pounds of Thermite to vaporize one pound of steel”…even allowing a magnitude increase for nano-thermite, the quantity required is prohibitive. See

        “The B-61, the More Usable Nuke” at Veterans Today for 65 article Nuclear Education series.

        “VT Nuclear Education, the Uranium Hydride Bomb” on plasma bunker buster….

        Lack of knowledge of reality….does NOT limit actual reality….

  2. James Fetzer said:

    “The problem is that A&E911 runs a limited hangout. Not only do they cling to the scientifically discredited theory of explosive nanothermite…..”

    It is only “discredited” in the minds of disinfo Agents, like yourself.

    “…..but they refuse to discuss who was responsible and why”

    If Richard Gage deviates from the scientific aspect of 911 and wanders off into the (((Who))) and “why”…..he’ll be branded an anti-Semite neo-Nazi, and the 2,600 Architects and Engineers will be removing their names from the list faster than you could say “Abe Foxman”

    Please don’t pretend to be stupid, Dr. Fetzer!

    1. Surely you have to know by now that a chemical engineer by the name of T. Mark Hightower and I published three articles in 2011 that exposed the sham theory of explosive nano-thermite, one of which was entitled, “Is 9/11Truth based upon a false theory?”, where we explain that, it is a law of materials science that, for an explosive to destroy a material, it must have a detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material. The speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s; in steel, 6,100 m/s. But the highest detonation velocity attributed to nano-thermite is only 858 m/s. If you don’t know that by now, you are way behind the learning curve.

      I am astonished that you would rush to support the determination of A&E911 to not discuss the WHO and the WHY of 9/11. And your explanation appalls me. Are you implying that 2,600 architects and engineers signed up to cover up for the perps of 9/11? Do you have any idea how that makes you look as a cheerleader for covering up who was responsible for 9/11 and why? You seem to take for granted that A&E911 would be branded “anti-Semitic” or “neo-Nazi” if they talked about it. Does that mean you are aware of the pivotal role played by the Mossad on 9/11? and that the entire scheme seems to have arisen from the fertile imagination of Bibi Netanyahu, who wanted to use the US to destroy enemies of Israel?

      1. “I am astonished that you would rush to support the determination of A&E911 to not discuss the WHO and the WHY of 9/11. And your explanation appalls me”

        Yeah…..I bet it “appalls” you.

        Your false sense of “shock” is nothing but pretention.

        If Richard Gage started posting information on his website naming Israel as the perpetrator of 911, all of the 2,600 Architects and Engineers who signed the petition for a new investigation would receive a letter from the ADL, and the prominent ones would probably have members of the JDL or Mossad show up on their porch to talk about their family and the weather and stuff.

        “Are you implying that 2,600 architects and engineers signed up to cover up for the perps of 9/11?”

        What kind of a brainless question is that?

        “Do you have any idea how that makes you look as a cheerleader for covering up who was responsible for 9/11 and why?”

        Do you have any idea what an idiot you look like by pretending to not understand my simple straightforward statements?

        “You seem to take for granted that A&E911 would be branded “anti-Semitic” or “neo-Nazi” if they talked about it”

        If you mean by “it” that Israel did 911, then yes, I take it for granted that Richard Gage would be branded an anti-Semite.

        “Does that mean you are aware of the pivotal role played by the Mossad on 9/11? and that the entire scheme seems to have arisen from the fertile imagination of Bibi Netanyahu, who wanted to use the US to destroy enemies of Israel?”

        I believe there is evidence that it was decades in the making by nameless, faceless Elders far above Netanyahu.

      2. But the highest detonation velocity attributed to nano-thermite is only 858 m/s.

        Evidence of thermite is not evidence that thermite was used exclusively.

        1. It is proof that nano-thermite cannot have been the cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers. We published this fact three times in 2011. Where has A&E911 stepped up to acknowledge that it was wrong to place so much emphasis upon nano-thermite and tell us WHAT ELSE WAS USED? This is not a trick question. They haven’t told us how it was done. That is their failure.

    1. The time has come to speak the truth about sock puppets like sockpuppet2012, who seems to be a leading apologist for covering up who was responsible and why. I have published two books on 9i/11, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007) and AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11(2016), where I bring together the best experts on different aspects of 9/11. I have also organized and participated in major conferences and presentations around the world, including in LA and Athens (2006), in Madison (2007), in Buenos Aires (2008 and 2009), in Vancouver (2012, in Champaign-Urbana (2014) and now the second MidWest 9/11 Truth Conference (2016), not to mention innumerable articles and videos. What has he ever done to advance 9/11 Truth other than to attack those of us at the cutting edge? His chosen name says it all!

      1. “…..sockpuppet2012, who seems to be a leading apologist for covering up who was responsible and why”

        That’s hilarious, not to mention PROJECTION.

        I have always directed people to Christopher Bollyn’s website, where he proves beyond all possible doubt (((who))) did 911 and why.

        Your “credentials” and “conferences” and “innumerable articles and videos” don’t prove what you say is true…..that’s just an appeal to authority, and since it’s an appeal to your OWN “authority”…..it makes it an appeal to narcissism.

        1. ALL MY WORK ON 9/11 HAS BEEN COLLABORATIVE! Which makes your attacks on me simply absurd. I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth and invited Steven Jones to be my co-chair. There are thirteen contributors to the Midweat 9/11 Truth Conference and fifteen to AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11 (2016, moonrockbooks.com). Are they all supposed to be wrong because you have a rope up your butt for me? You are one of the most perfect examples possible of why there has been so little progress in 9/11 research. Too many of those who pose as “9/11 Truthers” are working to cover up what happen, not to exposed it. And, by the way, I also organized a conference in London (2010). You regard accomplishments in advancing 9/11 Truth as Appeals to Authority, when I am refuting your ludicrous claim that I am not a bona fide student advancing 9/11 Truth. I have articles and books, lectures and presentations, videos and conferences that have advanced 9/11 Truth. What, apart from attacking those of us doing the real work, have you ever done? Where are your articles and books, lectures and presentations, videos and the like?

        2. “. . .that’s just an appeal to authority, and since it’s an appeal to your OWN “authority”…..it makes it an appeal to narcissism.”

          A new one to add to the dictionary of fallacies,then. I hope you don’t mind if I pilfer it and use as my own in the future. And a nice job, indeed, of shredding the crap out of the spinmeister and his ‘evidence free’ bullshit, sockpup. I wouldn’t have the patience . . . Thank you.

    2. And since Christopher Bollyn continues to endorse the indefensible theory of explosive nano-thermite, what good reason is there to suppose he has 9/11 right? I am sorry, but while I like the guy personally, he has a limited grasp of the science of 9/11. And notice that, in passing, sockpuppet2012 ADMITS that he hasn’t even bothered to look at the presentations archived on my blog. What more blatant indication of a fake and a fraud could we possibly have than a guy who condemns work without even looking at it? He deserves the name, “sock puppet”!

      1. “And since Christopher Bollyn continues to endorse the indefensible theory of explosive nano-thermite, what good reason is there to suppose he has 9/11 right?”

        Simple answer…..read his book and website.

        The evidence he has put together fits together perfectly, like a huge Jigsaw puzzle.

        1. I know Bollyn’s positions on these issues. I even traveled to Janesville, WI, recently, which is only twenty minutes drive from my home, to listen to him speak. I KNOW HIS VIEWS. The point is that you are so closed-minded that you are unwilling to review anyone else’s views, such as those participating in the MidWest 9/11 Truth Conference to which I have linked. There are 14 sessions that cover every aspect of 9/11, including HOW IT WAS DONE and WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE AND WHY. You condemn work without even reviewing it, which was obvious from the start when I posted and you immediately attacked. You have ACKNOWLEDGED that you haven’t looked at my blog, where the conference is posted. What could be more powerful proof that you do not know and do not care about the truth of 9/11. You ARE a “sock puppet”!

            1. Yes–since I retired from UMD in 2006 after completing a 35-year career as a professor during which I offered principally courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning, which cannot be found on this blog (with intermittent exceptions–you seem to be able to think things through).

              1. Well, I live just north of Madison, but I have lived there in the past. I still go there for grocery shopping since Woodman’s is so cheap.

      2. Dear Jim, I admire the work you have done, but am confused by your expenditure of time in this forum.

        The key issues are (((who))) did it, (((why))) they did it, and the absurdity of the (((official story))). Attacking people who don’t agree or haven’t come around the the mini-nukes theory is a waste of time at best.

        Suggesting Bollyn is “fake” and “fraud” because he hasn’t looked at your mini-nuke material is bullshit. He’s nailed the most important issues.

        You undermined your own credibility with such nonsense.

        1. Bollyn is excellent on who was responsible and why, issues that A&E911 and Judy Wood will not even address! But the continued support for the theory that nano-thermite was responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers–which Mark Hightower and I exposed as a myth in three articles we published in 2011!–makes him part of the A&E911 limited hangout. I praise him for what he has right and object to what he has wrong. If we are after the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about 9/11, you ought to be in agreement with me, not joining my critics.

          1. Jim,

            You can’t call AE911Truth a limited hangout just because they choose to focus on the fact that the towers were destroyed in a controlled demolition. They say that nanothermite was a part of the destruction and not even the major part. Niels Harrit told me that it was actually a very small part. So his position is that some kind of explosives + nanothermite were used. Given that you have no problem with the idea that nanothermite could have been used, I don’t see how this creates fertile ground for the movement to reach for their swords and choose sides. Just because one group or one individual does not look at all aspects of 9/11 doesn’t make them limited hangouts. Is Pilots for 9/11 Truth a limited hangout because they don’t look at whether Israel was involved? I don’t think so.

            The people I worry about are those who work against the interests of the movement by supporting key elements of the official story. Like those who push the idea that a 757, probably Flight 77, hit the Pentagon. I fight this battle because I believe we can’t let this false position to gain a hold on the movement. I would much rather be trying to wake people up than fighting internally about the method of destruction of the towers.

            1. Craig, I know you are an ardent fan of A&E911. I am not. They have known since 2011 when T. Mark Hightower and I published THREE ARTICLES proving that the buildings cannot have been blown apart by nano-thermite–that something else must have been involved–to tell us what that “something else” could have been. They haven’t done that, which I regard as conclusive proof that A&E911 is a limited hangout. They ignore the USGS dust sample studies and the rest of the evidence adduced here that it was a nuclear event. There is no doubt about it, but they ignore it. I am sorry that it offends you for me to speak out, but A&E911 has taken hundreds of millions in donations from sincere Americans and what have they got in return: nano-thermite and WTC-7!

              1. They ignore the USGS dust sample studies and the rest of the evidence adduced here that it was a nuclear event.

                You keep saying this Fetzer. The USGS dust samples do not prove that this was a nuclear event.

    3. I heard Chris Bollyn at Austin Truth, Rep 11, 2016 and discussed nukes, the ONLY method of vaporizing the amount of missing material, see

      “VT Nuclear Education, Uranium Hydride Bomb” at Veterans Today…..

      America’s latest bunker buster can vaporize a 4000 foot hole in a granite mountain. Mount one in the basement, facing UP and vaporize WTC-1, 2, 6 & 7 from the inside. Add mini nukes and thermite cut charges, then ask….

      “After 15 Years, 9/11 Unanswered Questions Still Smoldering” at Veterans Today

      1. Too bad you cannot detonate a nuclear device without there being:

        •A blinding light
        •Intense heat
        •Radiation poisoning of bystanders
        •Radiation burns of bystanders
        •High Geiger counts in the subsequent months
        •A mushroom cloud

        1. You are clueless on the range of nuclear devices. Placement of an up last Uranium Hydride bomb within the highly reinforced elevator shafts would have smoldered like a 110 story Roman candle. Read the 65 article Nuclear Education series at Veterans Today and start sharing Truth.

          Joseph A Olson, PE interviewed in “Unequivocal 9/11 Nukes” with Dr James Fetzer

          1. No, you are clueless.

            There is absolutely no evidence of residual radioactivity.

            You are likening an atomic bomb to a roman candle and you call me clueless? GTFO.

  3. Just an observation (guess), by one far from well-studied… Is it possible both nano-thermite and mini-nuclear weapons (or more) were used in bringing down WTC 1 and 2? Nano-thermite could explain heat so intense people, reportedly in the hundreds, jumped to their deaths rather than stay in the buildings. Mini-nukes could explain high-speed, hot winds on the streets near the towers which lifted pedestrians off their feet and deposited them no small distance away, along with explosions heard inside (re: this article – lobby, 23rd, 72nd floor), some of which occurred before any plane hit. For those interested in the 2016 presidential election, Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka have recently called for an independent investigation of 9/11.

    1. Jerry, OF COURSE! The problem is that A&E911 will not even concede that nano-thermite itself CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR BLOWING THE BUILDINGS APART! When a theory has been refuted on the basis of objective, scientific evidence, the appropriate response is to concede that it was wrong and to revise your views, rejecting hypotheseses you previously accepted, accepting hypothesis that you previously rejected, and leaving others in suspense. WE KNOW THAT NANO-THERMITE IS NON-EXPLOSIVE. I even include T. Mark Hightower among the speakers at the conference. But, like sockpupper2012, A&E911 has been unable to explain what in addition to nano-thermite was used to bring about the effects that we observe of the two towers blowing apart in every direction from the top down, being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, and leaving no massive piles of debris within their footprints. This is decisive proof A&E911 is not a scientific organization but a limited hang-out.

      1. “This is decisive proof A&E911 is not a scientific organization but a limited hang-out”

        You’re a crackpot and a liar!

        You are the one trying to divide and discredit the strongest most respected members of the Truth movement.

        If Richard Gage is a limited hangout Agent, then he has to be doing it deliberately, and therefore, he is a treasonous mass murderer.

        If AE911Truth is controlled opposition…..then it’s time to throw in the fucking towel.

        I say it is Fetzer who is the controlled opposition and Agent saboteur.

    2. There is no such thing as a mini-nuke. There is a concept called critical mass, that specifies the minimum mass of a nuclear explosion. This means that the smallest nuclear device has to be roughly equivalent to the W-54 warhead, which is about 2-4 times more powerful than the bomb used in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

      1. Travis, at least you are making the pretense of an argument. Now study the presentations of the civil and structural and chemical engineers who participated in the conference. Then come back and tell us what you think. If we have it wrong, then be specific about exactly what we say and why we say it and explain what we have wrong and how you know. Unless you think you know everything there is to know about these matters, why not give their research the consideration that it deserves ? But I congratulate you on being the first in this group to make an argument that was not simply fallacious on its face. You are commended for that. Now do some homework.

  4. Mr. Fetzer, I have been polite for years too long. But I feel compelled to take the gloves off. Here we have an interview with a family member. And this article is published on the anniversary. so what do you do? You come in immediately when the blog is published and attempt to steer the discourse into the direction of the possibility of AE911Truth being a fake truth organization. This to me reeks of COINTELPRO. Cognitive Infiltration.

    “The problem is that A&E911 will not even concede that nano-thermite itself CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR BLOWING THE BUILDINGS APART!”

    This is a good example of why I think you are a cognitive infil-traitor. AE has never said that they think that nano-thermite exclusively did the job!!! Your entire talking point is a red herring. They have said that there is evidence of nano-thermitic particles. But they believe that this was likely one of MANY incendiary / explosive agents that were at work.

    The fact that you attack the strongest, most credible 9/11 truth organization is all I need to know.

    😡😡😡

    1. Adam, You have made it obvious that you don’t care about 9/11 Truth but only in protecting the organizations that are covering it up. We have heard the story of Bob McIlvaine hundreds, if not thousands, of times. WHAT IS THE POINT OF PUBLISHING THIS AGAIN HERE AND NOW?

      I had suggested to Craig McKee that he consider publishing a piece about using AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11 (2016) as a target book for serious research and criticism. But he declined to do that and instead has published a puff piece that does nothing to advance 9/11 research.

      A&E911 has masqueraded as a public interest group for more than a decade now, soaking up funds from a sympathetic but gullible American public which probably exceeds several millions by now. And what have the produced? Nano-thermite and Building 7! That is the totality of it.

      We all know about Building 7. And we should have all known that nano-thermite can’t cut it (at least since 2011, when T. Mark Hightower and I published THREE ARTICLES about it, which A&E911 has done its best to ignore and suppress–just as you are doing here now yourself!

      I am sorry, but I have no respect for organizations and individuals who ignore important proof that is available and relevant to what happened on 9/11. That includes the USGS dust studies, which were drawn from 35 locations and are discussed extensively in Part 1 of the conference.

      This thread offers stunning proof that the 9/11 Truth community does not care about evidence or truth and justice at all. It is a complete charade, a pretense, an act. I have given you links to a new conference that is chock full of expert testimony and proof of the use of nukes on 9/11.

      Your response has been TO IGNORE IT. sockpuppet2012 DECLARES HE WON’T BOTHER TO LOOK. YOU SUPPORT HIM. YOU ARE IGNORING THE EVIDENCE, TOO. But that is not the response of others who care about truth, such as Sputnick News. It’s getting out in spite of your efforts: https://sputniknews.com/us/20160910/1045161326/9-11-alternative-versions.html

      1. “We have heard the story of Bob McIlvaine hundreds, if not thousands, of times. WHAT IS THE POINT OF PUBLISHING THIS AGAIN HERE AND NOW?”

        YOU may have but the general public hasn’t. And they need to. Craig’s blog visibility continues to grow and what better time than the anniversary?

        Why would you want to do anything to smother Bob M’s story at all?

        Good night, Uncle Fetz.

            1. When you ignore or denigrate the most important empirical evidence we have about 9/11–that the buildings were blown apart from the top down, that they were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, that there was no massive pile of debris in their footprints, that the USGS dust samples have confirmed that this was a nuclear event and that nano-thermite alone cannot have been responsible–what else is anyone to infer? If you were making an effort to come to grips with the scientific studies I have adduced here, there might be reason to think that you are not simply engaging in a cover up of how it was done and of who was responsible and why.

          1. The same arrogant mook I met in the McClendon room National Press Club some ten years ago. You James, your special companion Judy, and your plasmoid gaggle of sycophants still wreckingball your way through every fair gathering of people trying to untangle the mind-knot of 911? Your CME level hypocrisy could only be matched by your obtuseness to acknowledging just the very concept of hypocrisy within yourself (that’s a mathematical fact).

            Be proud of your achievement James, you are the single most enduring mass murderer of the 9/11 coverup (by forced confusion) I’ve seen of them all. You beat out Cheney and even the Pearl Prince of Darkness for your lasting character development to repel decent people.

            Really, to be clear… it would be the pinnacle of tragedy James, if you do in fact have anything decent, honest and good to offer the seekers of 911 truth… for the tragedy would lay where your offer is rejected on singular account of your halitosis delivery.

            Ya… you too can go tuck yourself. See how easy that was? How easy to tear a good gathering to shreds? But you already know all that, right? Oh wait, that’s right, you’re Mongo, “Mongo only pawn in game of life”.

            1. Typical of shills who have no argument to present, where Barrie Zwicker is not going to call you out for the most despicable ad hominem here. The NPC meeting was to present Judy’s work on 9/11 to better inform the public of the then-current state of 9/11 research. I have long since been convinced by the USGS dust sample studies and the work of civil and structural and chemical engineers that she is wrong in her theory, but she comes across as a paradigm of reason and rationality compared to most of you here, of which you are a stellar example unethical conduct.

              Here is one of the most important contributions to the MidWest 9/11 Truth Conference II, in which those responsible for 9/11 are identified and their rationale explained, a matter that the masters of A&E911 will not address and for which they are applauded by sock puppets here:

  5. For what it’s worth I find the exchanges above to be equal parts distressing and revealing. And ultimately, with luck, empowering.

    Distressing because they are the latest evidence of what might be called splits within the 9/11 Truth movement. Such schisms, or what the Chinese call “splittism,” have to be counted mainly as regrettable when they are occurring within an important—perhaps an all-important—movement dedicated to truth, justice and peace. (These are large abstract nouns, but in my opinion they apply here.)

    But are they really splits when it comes to the overall direction of the parties? All parties, including the writer, claim to be dedicated to truth, justice and peace. Whatever my strengths and weaknesses, achievements and lack of same, I do know I am so dedicated. (When it comes to my determining whether any other given individual Truther is totally authentic, I’m on thinner ice.)

    Now what of the revealing aspect of the above exchanges? One comprises the sources (websites, conference proceedings, etc.) we are referred to.

    But within the thread itself, one of the most revealing aspects is who stoops to name-calling, and why, and to what extent.

    Name-calling, or ad hominem argument, is recognized essentially as invalid argument. The Wikipedia entry under it begins as follows:

    “Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”[2]

    The entry continues to say that ad hominem argument is not always fallacious. Anyone reading what I’m writing here can study the Wikipedia entry further regarding that, or research the whole subject of argumentum ad hominem further, in any way and to what extent they wish.

    But just regarding this one aspect, relevant to this one thread, arising from this one article, are as I see it, these dozen points:

    1 Name-calling, in any context, is destructive, is bullying, is disruptive.

    2 The more important the subject, the more damaging are the outcomes of name-calling.

    3 When people of goodwill are debating, name-calling is unnecessary.

    4 The more broadaxe the name-calling, the more irresponsible it is.

    5 In the present instance, the first name-calling was engaged in by the first commenter, and in the first sentences of his comment. First comments tend to set the tone, especially if they are highly provocative. This commenter’s first comment, and his subsequent ones, also featured extreme word inflation such as “simply appalling,” (in first comment), “you are far beyond incompetent” (in his second), “groups like A&E911 […] are soaking the public for dough and producing nothing of value at all” (in his third) and so on, escalating to “you do not know and do not care about the truth of 9/11” and worse.

    6 This first commenter is Jim Fetzer, who points out in the thread, as he has before, that he completed “a 35-year career as a professor during which I offered principally courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning…”

    7 His contribution to this thread is out of sync with logic (ad hominem argument is illogical) and is shunned in circles of scientific thinking. And out of tune with critical thinking. So there is a strange and worrisome disconnect.

    8 While Jim Fetzer’s contributions to 9/11 Truth have been considerable, at the same time his contributions have often been—and this thread is an example—unnecessarily disruptive within the movement.

    9 It can be said he should know better. It can be said that in responding to his name-calling, more name-calling is a mistake. It can be noted that down through history rulers have planted agents within movements, agents whose assignment is to disrupt.

    10 Each of us truly committed to 9/11Truth (and probably to revealing and promoting truths about other, and related, state crimes against democracy, to use Lance deHaven-Smith’s term) is forced, as I see it, to promote truths as effectively as possible. This requires avoiding, as much as possible, contributing to unnecessary disruptions.

    11 What might be called a paradox is that a highly important truth about promoting truth is that agents of the state are almost always assigned to disrupt that promotion. To ignore this truth (about the existence of agents and their modus operandi) would be irresponsible.

    12 The trick is to deal with agents (or those who might as well be agents, in particular instances or generally) without enabling their disruptiveness through rising to their bait. Insofar as we can manage that, we are empowered.

    1. Over the years, I have come to appreciate that Barrie Zwicker likes to cast himself as though he were the “conscience of the 9/11 movement”. He accuses me for committing an ad hominem by pointing out that sockpuppet2012, Adam Syed and others (including himself) are not paying attention to the SCIENTIFIC PROOF (1) that nano-thermite cannot possibly have blown the Twin Towers apart and (2) that there is extensive evidence that it was done by mini or micro nukes and (3) that it could have been done using a combination of nano-thernite and nukes.

      How is that an attack on the person who ignores it? It is making the simple point that when you ignore the most important scientific evidence, your conclusions are not going to be well-founded. It is a basic principle of scientific reasoning that conclusions have to be based upon all of the available relevant evidence, which includes the incapacity of nano-thermite to explode the Twin Towers and the massive proof that it was done by mini or micro nukes. Far from violating the canons of logic, THE POINTS I AM MAKING ARE ENFORCING THEM. So much for logic!

      Barrie loves to get on a high horse about issues where he has no background or understanding, which include virtually every scientific aspect of 9/11. He does not appear to grasp how we know that all four of the crash sites were fabricated or faked or that the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of micro or mini nukes. Given that the evidence is on my side, where the case against me can only be fabricated by special pleading (“cherry picking”), I find it ironic that he would suggest that I am some kind of “agent of the state”, which is simply absurd.

      Would an agent of the state have organized conferences and published books–which have been described as “the only exclusively scientific books published” on the death of JFK–that shatter the government cover up and expose the perps involved in his assassination? or exposed the actual causes of the plane crash that took the life of Sen. Paul Wellstone? or with a half-dozen other Ph.D.s unraveled the Sandy Hook hoax as a two-day FEMA drill, where the school had been closed in 2008 and was refurbished as a stage–where we even have the FEMA manual?

      And there is so much more. If I am an “agent of the state”, I must be the most unsuccessful in history. On the other hand, what could be more clever than to have an actual “agent of the state” pose as the conscience of the 9/11 community in order to selectively attack those who are doing the cutting edge research that exposes what really happened, who was responsible and why? That would make him especially effective if he could play upon the gullible saps who have been taken in by pseudo-scientific arguments from those who are at the very core of the cover-up.

    2. Dennis Cimino has asked me to post this response to Barry Zwicker on his behalf. Here it is:

      Mr. Zwicker,

      I have maintained that much of the alleged 9/11 truth movement is infiltrated by ‘sock puppets’ (we have one here who hides behind a moniker and hurls epithets like a chimpanzee in a zoo hurls turds, I may have to say). Even Mr. Sayed tosses the COIN OP label at Jim Fetzer as if he’s earned a particular right to do that. Not that we always should maintain total civility in these discussions, but when the immediate AD HOMS and personal attacks ensue without much ado, you know you’re dealing with real COIN OP personnel who’s job it is to disrupt the discourse and run it into the gutter so that nobody reads further into the postings. This is typical Tavistock / Delphi badgering going on here, and is so very typical of venues wholly totally infiltrated by shills and persona’s who haven’t proven anything about their own veracity other than they love to hide behind their anonymity and hurl turds as is the case here with several of the posters.

      So, I wanna tell you guys a little story about what apparently happened in Vancouver in 2012. Mr. Richard Gage flew commercially from Boston on the AE911 dime and talked to several local Vancouver 9/11 truth persons before our 9/11 HEARINGS took place, and tried to dissuade the local truth persons from participating in our venue at the Denman Theater there. Now, I have personally spoken to more than two of the people in Vancouver who were in that meeting with Gage, and found it not only astonishing but very very indicative of a very ulterior motive other than the derivation of TRUTH. Why Gage was so concerned that he got on a jet and flew to Vancouver to try to torpedo the event is uncertain, but this allegedly coming from a man who’s sole job is to get to the truth? Mr. Zwicker, if that’s getting at the truth, I want to know what it is to BURY IT then. Is this the same man who begs for money incessantly? I do think it is unless there is an imposter who looks and sounds like him. Certainly is not truth he’s trying to get to with tactics like that, is it? And Mr. Gage, if I have to I’ll get signed affidavits certifying you did exactly what I state here. Do you really want that? Do you really want that information plastered all over the blogs proving you went to sabotage our Hearings there? I think it’s time the world knew who the COIN OPS really are in the movement.

      Furthermore, we have a guy from AE911, Wayne Costes, who goes on tour and tells people there is a more than 110 foot hole in the front of the Pentagon from an aircraft impact, citing the government report on the building performance. Another acolyte from AE911 named Kevin Ryan has come out and said that it’s far more important to fully get the full flavor of 9/11 facts by buying 80 percent of the official story. You can’t make this crap up. Time after time AE911 says they stay away from these discussions about whether or not planes really impacted when no proof exists to support that, yet they are smack dab in the epicenter of this disinformation placing aircraft in these venues when no empirical records or wreckage evidence can support that. Why? There is no 110 foot hole in the Pentagon, yet AE911 says there is. This implies a B-757 impacted when there is no proof of that. Why then? Why?

      This isn’t hearsay, Mr. Zwicker. But what would you and Adam Sayed and this sockpuppet hiding behind anonymity person think if their assertions of COIN OP on Fetzer’s part are lame and moot by simple magnitude of the criminality here when this is the kind of b.s. that smacks of COINTELPRO or COIN OP work?

      When Richard Gage can comment about what compelled him to jump on a jet and fly at AE911 expense to Vancouver to dissuade those people there from participation in our 9/11 TRUTH HEARINGS in JUNE, then maybe we can have the other guy tell us more about how he trusts the government bullshit story about a 110 foot gash that doesn’t exist in the building.

      The so called TRUTH movement self destructed when it accepted b.s. and crap like this, so I don’t understand how anyone like Adam Sayed can now decry that Jim Fetzer is the only COIN OP here when clearly that statement is blatantly and patently FALSE by absolute historical facts.

      When you allow anonymous posters to come in here and put out ad hom after ad hom and attack concepts they are literally unable to substantiate their technical expertise or background in, it’s unclear what they can contribute here other than tamp dirt on any meaningful discussion.

      Mr. Sayed, I once thought you to be an honest broker from your other commentary in many other venues, but you diminish yourself here by making allegations about James Fetzer because he justifiably states that he believes that AE911 is a ‘limited hangout’ which in fact it clearly is.

      A former affiliate named Fahrney spoke at length about AE911’s strident opposition to gas chromatograph tests of the dust samples from lower Manhattan that were preserved in sealed vacuum containers after collection. Why would AE911 so vehemently punish and admonish people within the organization about suggesting these tests are a crucial and important step.

      15 years later and we still do not have comprehensive testing done on the dust. Why?

      Mr. Zwicker, I don’t know where you stand on this but clearly I’ll be amazed if you can state for the record that you’ve never heard of these things cited herein.

      As for our ‘sockpuppet’ guy here, and the other gent Travis, get some manners and pipe it down or go away, we do not need you in here deflecting this into the toilet. It’s already been done to such an extent that for all practical purposes there is NO VIABLE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT because of all of the infiltration and Tavistock sock puppet Delphi attack stuff for more than 10 years.

      And Mr. Gage, why did you go to Vancouver to dissuade them from participation if you were in it for TRUTH?

      Mr. Costes, tell us more about that 110 foot gash nobody’s seen. That’s a real knee slapper. Truly.

      Thanks, but gents, this truth movement is a very very dessicated dead horse. totally infiltrated. Not by Fetzer or myself, but by so many who’ve led this whole thing directly into the reeds and swamps with bullshit and infiltration.

      There’s so much total infiltration that it’s a veritable C.I.A. spook house more than a TRUTH venue here.

      And that’s sad. The truth movement is wholly totally infiltrated by disinfo agents and I have to say you can indict Jim Fetzer all day long but you have bigger problems within. Far bigger than mini or micro nukes used on 9/11. You have people here hiding behind aliases and monikers and even officials of the so called PREMIER truth organization who have sought to derail truth by sabotaging efforts and by stating that 110 foot holes in the Pentagon exist from an alleged aircraft impact. So, it’s far worse, Mr. Zwicker. You might as well fold up the tent if you don’t clean house and hold hearings on the sabotage and the lying going on that is within the movement itself to steer TRUTH way out of the picture into the toilet.

      I’m sorry to have to be the bearer of the news but you are pointing at the wrong person as COIN OP when you seem to have such admiration for those within who’ve so egregiously harmed TRUTH by derailing it with their attempts at sabotage, intentionally preventing chromatograph and spectrometry tests of the dust samples, and lastly, by citing fictional holes in a building when no 110 foot hole exists on the Pentagon.

      If that’s TRUTH you guys are pissing up a very limp rope here. Sadly.

      Get the tests done. quit spewing bullshit about nonexistent holes. and get to the bottom of the Vancouver flight by Gage to dissuade the local group from participating. Then talk about truth but not one moment sooner, please.

      1. James Henry Fetzer:

        I find all of this very fascinating. I can only acquire information about 9/11 via the inter-net just like most of you do.

        I was shown by Craig, that there was no plane hitting the Pentagon.

        By extension, no plane went into the 10×20 hole in Shanksville.

        Yet most of the folks here think planes hit the Towers.

        One thing for sure, the buildings were destroyed. You sincerely think it was destroyed by mini-nukes. Others believe some kind of thermite was used and everyone here has to go someplace on the inter-net to get information to support their view.

        You find several people to support your view and make videos to show this is how it is done. Travis points out interesting points that say otherwise.

        Once a person gloms unto an idea, no amount of persuasion with other facts will be entertained even though most folks are not educated about the subject. Gage has his views but I think he was also persuaded being he is the “push” of an influential group. Who here in this forum understands nuclear fission? You present all sorts of supposed experts and I wouldn’t know if they were telling the truth or not. The same with thermite whether it is logical to use to bring down 1/4 mile of building into it;s footprint, without for the most part going across the street.

        All I can do is look at pictures of the aftermath and see there isn’t very much there.

        One thing for sure, most everyone agrees most of the Towers were turned into dust/powder except Adam Ruff. The dust wasn’t hot because the people caught in it said it was cooler then the ambient temperature of the day. Adam Ruff claims all the steel is hidden in plain view and underground. I made a long post with pictures showing most of the underground was not damaged and if there was fires underground raging, why there isn’t any smoke soot covering everything because of lack of oxygen. Anyways my post never made it to this page.

        Craig has his views but is allowing everyone to make their points, up to a point, the only place I know of that allows that concerning 9/11. You can’t go to a Professor in a University because everyone is afraid to make a comment, as if they were told not to touch the subject with a ten foot pole. Why is Stephen Jones not teaching anymore at the University. He whines “I like teaching”.

        But one thing really sticks out here, it’s like the religious views seen in all the denominations, supposedly all derived from one book. How can everyone disagree when there is only one source? Is it because there is something not being addressed?

        There are some things I’m really good at and I can teach a novice to understand and duplicate. But when it comes to 9/11 everyone is an expert but none of the others understand.

        Mr. Fetzer, if it was nuclear fission, does it exclude certain metals? I’m not an expert and just asking a question, if the aluminum cladding was placed on the steel facade of the outside walls, why was the steel turned to dust but not the aluminum fastened to it? The reason why I ask this question is I look at the following picture taken the very same day and I don’t see any steel but I do see aluminum siding. I also don’t see the front doors of Tower #1 behind the vehicle parked there. And there is a man walking on the pavement. Would you be so kind as to explain the picture……..?

        1. Once the true causes of the destruction of the Twin Towers has been disclosed–and there are a lot of other sources who support the nuke hypothesis, including Dimitri Khalezov of Russia, Jeff Smith of Veterans Today, Jeff Prager who published 9/11: AMERICA NUKED, Dennis Cimino in “A World Swirling in a Volcano of Lies”, (http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/911-world-swirling-in-volcano-of-lies.html, which is of special interest because it reconciles the use of a large nuke to finish the job with a lot of mini nukes, Chuck Boldwyn, Don Fox, Charles Pegelow and Joe Olson, among others, it was inevitable that they would send out “nuclear hit men” to attempt to discredit a theory has has been well-confirmed by the evidence, which is the deal here.

          You can observe with your own eyes that the buildings are blowing apart in every direction from the top down. That already implies that it cannot have been done by nano-thermite, because, as T. Mark Hightower and I explained in three articles published in 2011, that nano-thermite should be regarded as explosive is a myth. There are those who want to prop it up, nevertheless, but if you think about the buildings being converted into millions of cubic yards of very find dust–and the vaporization of 60-80 million tons of steel–there are not a lot of alternatives that remain. The destruction of the buildings to or even below ground level seals the deal: we are not confronting any kind of collapse but a far more sophisticated demolition that was intended to keep the bathtub intact, as I have explained above.

          The aluminum cladding was on the exterior of the building as decoration for aesthetic reasons. My best guess–and others I have named above can add more to the discussion–is that because the mini nukes were located in the core columns and directed upward, the cladding was largely excluded from vaporization but was blow outward and came down beyond their footprints. When we factor in the results of the USGS dust samples–which, in spite of the denials, provides proof that these were nuclear events–and the medical maladies that were incurred by first responders and local residents–which has been repeatedly documented in the press, as in the case of this article, “The Curse of Ground Zero”, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3740215/Number-911-responders-scene-cancer-tripled-three-years.html, which reports 48,000 in one program and 16,000 in another, suffering the effects of exposure.

          So those who are opposed to the mini nuke theory are doomed by the overwhelming evidence in its support. I especially recommend the article by Dennis Cimino abut how it was done and the report from The Daily Mail in the UK about the proliferation of cancer as antidotes to what we are being told by those who are doing their best to suppress the truth. The aluminum cladding is an interesting issue but, just as a lot of steel was not vaporized but blow beyond the footprints of the towers, it should not be surprising if a lot of the aluminum cladding also survived and was blown outward by the force of the energy directed upward by the micro and mini nukes that were used. Anyone who wants to know how it was done should watch these presentations, which leave no doubt about it. Only those who are uninterested in 9/11 Truth would refuse to watch or attempt to dismiss the evidence that supports how wit was done.

          1. When we factor in the results of the USGS dust samples–which, in spite of the denials, provides proof that these were nuclear events–

            How Jim? How do the USGS dust samples prove this? Huh?

          2. James Henry Fetzer:

            Mr. Fetzer I am well aware of all the people you are choosing to back you up concerning the “mini-nuke” thing and as in other subjects there are thousands of experts out there with the alphabet in front and behind their name who will say things they read and studied in books and quote one another. But as in other subjects most never investigated anything. In fact words that are used in the English language are mis-used all of the time by TV anchors and professional reporters.

            I agree with you that the buildings for the most part which includes the steel turned to dust but I don’t agree with you when you use the term “vaporized” which entails heat. There wasn’t any heat in the dust, otherwise the people that were running in it would have been cooked. People keep using the word “pyroclastic flow” whic is supper hot gas and dust from a volcano reaching as high as 1,000 °C. Everyone that was caught in the dust from the destruction said the dust was cooler then the ambient temperature.

            If then there isn’t any heat, how do people come to the conclusion it has to be “mini-nukes” or for that matter “thermite”? In the middle of that picture are 14 people still alive and were not killed by concussion or heat generated by any explosives.

            You said…. “if you think about the buildings being converted into millions of cubic yards of very find dust–and the vaporization of 60-80 million tons of steel–there are not a lot of alternatives that remain. ”

            What do you mean “not a lot”? Just because you don’t know if there is other things that can do it, doesn’t mean you can choose one that you know to fill the gap by default.

            You said…. “…..a far more sophisticated demolition that was intended to keep the bathtub intact”

            I agree with you on that one but I do disagree on the method.

            You said….. “….because the mini nukes were located in the core columns and directed upward”

            That’s an assumption and you have to explain the 70 story high “spire” that was left standing. Your telling me “nukes” turned all the core columns to dust but one escaped that destruction???

            You said…. “The aluminum cladding is an interesting issue but, just as a lot of steel was not vaporized but blow beyond the footprints of the towers, ….”

            How far? One section of outside facade hit the lower portion of a building and one chunk hit the Bankers Trust in the middle. Look on any other building across the street and you wont see any steel especially the Big Steel. The only thing you see everywhere is aluminum siding which seems it escaped the destruction of the steel it was fastened to.

            What caused the destruction of the Towers but forgot the ambulance outside the front doors. That’s where Bobby Mc. was killed before the Towers were destroyed.

            You said…. “The aluminum cladding is an interesting issue but, just as a lot of steel was not vaporized but blow beyond the footprints of the towers,”

            There isn’t any on any of the buildings across the street and very little on the street as the ambulance picture above shows. But there is aluminum everywhere, which is a puzzle hard to understand.

            There isn’t very much underground as I tried to show in my post to Adam Ruff, but my post wasn’t allowed and never made this page.

            The Mall wasn’t crushed as this picture reveals…..

            1. Roger, May I assume you have watched the presentations I have posted? When you combine the effects, there does not appear to be any more likely explanation. If it had been done using nano-thermite, what is the probability that the buildings would have been blown apart in every direction from the top down? Zero. If it had been done using DEWs as free energy weapons of the kind Judy Wood has proposed? Who knows–because she has never been specific enough to allow the hypothesis to be critically examined, much less empirically tested. If it was done using a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes, the probability (depending upon their arrangement and sequence of demolition) would approach One. Surely you can see that now.

              But it’s not just blowing the buildings apart in every direction from the top down that matters. The alternatives confer either zero or unknown probabilities upon converting the buildings into very fine dust / leaving no debris in their footprints / vaporizing a massive quantity of steel / why it was necessary to bring 100s of thousands of tons of dirt to cover the debris pile / why the USGS dust studies demonstrates the presence of elements that would only have been there — in the quantities and correlations discovered — had this been a nuclear event / why nearly 70,000 first responders and local residents have suffered from debilitating effects associated with exposure to ionizing radiation / how massive, 500,000-ton buildings could have been destroyed in seconds.

              As several of those interviewed have explained, the use of mini or micro nukes would have produced extremely high temperature (in the millions of degrees range) for milliseconds (or a very brief interval of time). Others, including Don Fox and Dennis Cimino, can say more, but the light emitted would have been (for the most part) above the visible spectrum. The dust clouds, I would infer, ought to have been warm rather than cool. But nearly 70,000 first responders and local residents have suffered from debilitating medical maladies associated with exposure to ionizing radiation. Go back and what what Charles Pegelow and Joe Olson have to say about how it was done. It cannot have been by using nano-thermite, RDX or conventional explosives.

              I am not a nuclear physicist or a civil or structural engineer. But I have brought together people who are experts in these areas where I am not. I have repeatedly reiterated points (1) through (7), which summarize the case. I have given you the names of additional experts who support the hypothesis that the WTC was nuked. No one, at this point in time, should continue to cling to the myth of explosive nano-thermite. It is a feeble explosive and would have required filling the Twin Towers as though they were silos of nano-thermite chips. The only hypothesis that has the ability to explain the data summarized by (1) though (7) is that it was done using a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes. And I am doing my best to bring the proof to everyone here.

              1. James Henry Fetzer:

                You asked….. “Roger, May I assume you have watched the presentations I have posted?”

                Only some of it.

                I agree with you on some points but I disagree on others. There were explosions that killed people before the Towers were destroyed. The assumption is it has to be some kind of “bombs” purposely put it place. As far as anyone knows, the supposition is was to weaken the Towers.

                We both agree the Towers were turned into powder/dust. You assume it was “nukes” that did it. What then was the cause of the big explosions? There is no need to blow the support concrete, if the Towers are going to be destroyed from the top going down. Who ever did this knew how the Towers were going to be destroyed along with the other buildings of the WTC complex in the manner they did. No other buildings were selected except those with the WTC prefix even though there is other buildings that could have been destroyed. So this was a very selective destruction.

                You as well as Craig figure the building were blown apart. Just using you two guys to explain this as I know there are supporters for both in the way it was destroyed.

                We all see the vast majority of the buildings is turning to powder. They are not collapsing but dissolving from the top down. This is far different then the explosion that killed Bobby Mc. because there wasn’t any noise of explosions as the buildings came apart. Sure there was some noise but not explosions. For the most part it was a silent destruction aside from some of the steel and debris hitting bottom. Building #7 is different but still no explosions when it starts to come down after “frothing” only on one side for several hours.

                You asked…. “If it had been done using nano-thermite, what is the probability that the buildings would have been blown apart in every direction from the top down?”

                First of all, they were not BLOWN apart but they were turning to dust. Just like a “sparkler” does on Halloween but without the “sparkle”. No explosive noises and no fire.

                You said…. “If it had been done using DEWs as free energy weapons of the kind Judy Wood has proposed? Who knows–because she has never been specific enough to allow the hypothesis to be critically examined, much less empirically tested. ”

                From what I can gather, Judy Wood explains what she sees, not the manner it was destroyed. Soon as the acronym “DEW” is used everyone turns off the thinking, yet today it is a fact. The US and Israel are using it and they are putting it on military ships. There hasn’t been one reply to this picture, but rest assured it was taken and we all see it….

                That’s not one of the usual run of the mill explosions, because there is no fire, just a bright light and the destruction of buildings. If the military is using this captured on camera, what else have they got???? You might want to call this a “nuke” but I don’t think so, and this sure as all get out not “thermite”.

                Well this is 2016 and they are revealing this, that was not revealed in 2001……

                Is some of this “stuff” what caused the explosion that killed Bobby Mc? If the military is revealing this now, was it in use on 9/11……????

                If that is the case, then Judy Wood may have been onto something and everybody thought she was nuts. It’s not nutty now, is it?

                You said…. “If it was done using a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes, the probability (depending upon their arrangement and sequence of demolition) would approach One. Surely you can see that now.”

                No. There are to many things that don’t fit with your scenario because there wasn’t any explosions or fire when the buildings were coming apart. Nukes are not selective in what they will destroy, especially aluminum fastened to steel facade.

                What do you do with the fourteen people in Stairwell B….?????? Nothing fell on them nor were they cooked by explosives of any kind. If your going to use explosives then what was it that prevented these fourteen people from getting killed like Bobby Mc.?

                You bring up some important points, like bringing in brown dirt to cover the debris that was there. You would think they should have been taking the debris out rather then cover it up. You suppose this was to cover radiation which doesn’t make sense since all this stuff had to be taken out eventually.

                You attribute all the sickness due to radiation, so I have to ask why the others that were there didn’t suffer the same sickness. Radiation isn’t selective. Not everybody has a strong immune system because of their life style so these would be affected by something that affected them and not others. Radiation gets everybody, not just those with bad immune systems.

                I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

                Did you find any experts to explain the modern weapons regarding the military weapons used today like in those two photos I submitted above?

                Whatever killed Bobby Mc. has to be tied to what destroyed the Towers and no-one wants to look there.

    3. Mr. Zwicker. Your long statement is without ONE mention of or reference to, the essence of what is under discussion here. The presentation of information and evidence of nuclear events taking place at WTC. Surely Is the most important breakthrough of 911 truth consciousness in years.

      1. remo.:

        I’m not sure who Mr. Zwicker is, but from where I sit it couldn’t be a nuclear event, because there isn’t any radiation and it wouldn’t by-pass the three story pile where 14 people were alive and lived. And , the building didn’t compress and go into the basement. It wasn’t blown apart either, because those 14 people wouldn’t be alive.

        Explain why these 14 people lived through the destruction.

    4. “While Jim Fetzer’s contributions to 9/11 Truth have been considerable”

      I can’t agree. Zero constructive contribution. It is a pettern: zero constructive contribution to JFK as well.

  6. I have interrupted comments on this thread because they were not only off the topic of the article but also filled with personal attacks. I will provide a more detailed reaction to this soon and will decide whether to reopen comments and under which conditions and rules. Thank you.

    *Let me add this (it is now just after 5 p.m. EST): I would love to plunge into this discussion with a detailed comment, particularly since I am one of those who has been discussed. Unfortunately, I am under a pressing deadline for another publication, and this must be my priority until it is done. I hope this will be today. There is a great deal in this exchange that I don’t like, and I will address it at the first opportunity. —Craig McKee

  7. I am now reopening comments on this thread after two days of wonderful, relaxing calm. Jim Fetzer has agreed to step aside from the discussion so that focus can go back to the evidence.

    I was not impressed by the discussion you can read above – mainly because it deteriorated quickly into name-calling while I lay on my couch sleeping in front of the TV after a hard day of watching the “Justice in Focus” conference in NYC and binge-watching Weeds. This will not be tolerated beyond this point. The insults, I mean, not Weeds.

    Anyone who calls another in the discussion an agent, a liar, a jackass, a weak-minded whatever, will have their comment removed and will risk having their posting privileges suspended. Keep in mind that comments go up in real time, and it is only people commenting for the first time whose posts go into moderation. So if you see someone breaking the rules, do me a favor and don’t step up onto a soapbox and express your outrage about what is being permitted. I don’t have that much of a life beyond 9/11, but occasionally I’m doing something else. I’ll get to it.

    It is my understanding that AE911Truth takes the position that nanothermite was used in the destruction of all three World Trade Center towers. They don’t claim that it did the job without the help of explosives. Even Niels Harrit told me that it played a relatively small role. Jim agrees that it might have been used also. So it seems to me that the difference of position between Jim and AE just involves what primary type of explosive device was used. I don’t see the benefit of going to the mattresses over this (I assume everyone has seen The Godfather). We all agree the buildings were blown up. On purpose. And not by Muslim patsies.

    I have stated in past articles what I think is productive and what I think isn’t. I don’t have a problem with Jim or others doing research on the nuke theory and presenting their conclusions. Just as I don’t have a problem with those who take a very different position making their case. I don’t agree, however, with attacks on AE911Truth over their position on nanothermite especially when the attacks come from those who are also open to nanothermite being used. I always think about how we reach people who are not familiar with the evidence; and reading a fight about nukes vs. thermite – especially on the anniversary – is not going to attract anyone and advance our cause, in my opinion. Doing the research and writing papers and books, on the other hand, is fair game.

    I don’t claim AE is the perfect organization or that it looks at all the things I would like it to look at. As you know, the Pentagon is often my focus, so ’nuff said on that. But I think it is a positive force or I wouldn’t be involved with them. The people who run the organization on a day-to-day basis are professionals who do great work for our cause. The group is not a limited hangout because it isn’t telling the movement to avoid other research – including who did it. The AE decision-makers just don’t think it makes sense for them to focus on this. Those who support AE, on the other hand, are free to pursue areas of research it stays away from. I think the fact that the organization has me writing for it speaks to that.

    So, in conclusion, I don’t think we should be shy about criticizing positions we think are damaging to the efforts of our movement, but I don’t think we should gratuitously look for fights either. Now, it’s time for me to get back to work on one of my many fascinating 9/11 projects. Although season four of Weeds is just sitting there…

    1. “I don’t have that much of a life beyond 9/11, but occasionally I’m doing something else. I’ll get to it.”

      Careful, the conspiracy theorists might interpret that to mean you’re getting your paycheck from 9/11 truthing…😉

    2. I tried to make a reply regarding the explosion in the lobby that killed Bobby Mc. and it didn’t got through and this before you stopped the comments. I don’t know why and when I got back from a truck trip all this sniping was going on.

      I don’t think any of those involved were deliberately choosing to believe in a lie regarding 9/11 and it appears people are coming to conclusions regarding the facts they accumulated though incomplete.

      Regardless the subject we all do this but there is one thing for certain all the views can’t be right.

      I as well am “a truther” but I feel I am on the periphery because I don’t accept the controlled demolition perspective because of the way the building came apart. Why is it because of the explosion in the lobby, does it have to be controlled demolition?

      The vast majority of you believe explosives of one kind or another was used, yet when you compare any pictures or videos of controlled demolition none look like the Towers coming apart, especially from the top down.

      This was quoted…. “He wasn’t hit by a fireball, he was hit by a detonation,” McIlvaine contends. “In a detonation, the blast is first and then followed by the heat.”

      Does it make any kind of sense only one part at a time was being destroyed by explosions, if the purpose was to bring the building down by controlled demolition? The building could topple over and crush buildings five blocks away considering it’s height.

      What if it was something else that exploded? Was it Natural Gas, or was it a transformer? To assume it was charges of some kind of explosive that was heard is jumping the gun because no-one saw any explosives but only assumed there was because the building was eventually destroyed. Was there back up generators for electricity in the basement, and if so what kind of fuel did they have for the motors and what amount did they have in there? The delivery garage is directly under the main floor that goes underneath the whole complex and the lights are on under Building’s #4 and #5, so if there was an explosion in there it didn’t cut the electricity.

      I’m not trying to squelch what you believe just to get you distracted, but only trying to make sense of all of this. It don’t make sense to start controlled demolition and blow things so far spaced apart. Every time you see an edifice being demolished, all the charges are in a very specific order and all run sequentially all within a specific space of time so the building will fall into it’s footprint.

      Never do you see explosives done randomly.as if some stooge is running around inside there triggering charges here and there .Something else was at work here. Everyone here is trying to solve this but you can’t just pick a method and then try to make it fit when it don’t as if by default.

      Thermite is unreliable to do it’s work in a very short space of time. So if you add “nukes” does it make it plausible?

      When you see the size of the steel in those buildings, and most of it disappears in 1/10th of a second, how much explosives would you need to turn it to dust? There isn’t any big steel on the roofs of the buildings across the street so it didn’t go there and there isn’t any steel on the street outside the front doors of Building #1 because a fireman is walking on the pavement among aluminum siding with an ambulance in the picture that only has dust on it. This picture was taken on the same day.

      Stairwell B had 14 firemen in it and they saw sunshine for a short period and they all walked out of there. So they weren’t fried by “nukes” or burnt by charges of blowing thermite, yet everything above them was turned to powder and dust.

      Like Travis asked, “Was there radiation?”

      The people who were caught in the “dust storm” said it was cooler then the ambient temperature of the day. So where is the heat?

      Whatever it was that killed Bobby Mc. had to be something already in the building that wasn’t on the second floor above.the Lobby. The reasoning is the ceiling is still there except the marble on the walls was shaken down. Also, the remains of the steel from a portion of the outside walls are still seen standing there “uncut” or “blown apart” or crushed from what was above them.

      It certainly wasn’t jet fuel coming down the elevator shafts because of an airplane. Almost all the conversations here still include the planes hitting the towers but just like the Pentagon there wasn’t any planes hitting any building.

      Amazingly one plane was shot down, but hardly nothing is said of this by the “truthers” or the Media.

      The firemen were quoted as saying the Scott packs were exploding in the firetrucks outside the building when there wasn’t any fire, so whatever it was that caused all of these tanks to explode on the street was probably the same cause for the explosion that killed Bobby Mc.

      What it was, I have no idea, except possibly what is now revealed by the Armed Forces 15 years later.

      1. Roger,

        The explosion in question appears to have been one of the two set off in the subbasements of each tower to weaken their foundations and drain the sprinkler systems of water. Willie Rodrigues came to Madison and, while we were having dinner after his talk, he described to be watching the water fill the subbasements. These explosions ranked .7 and .9 on the Richter scale. When the buildings were demolished, those events came in a 2.1 and 2.3.

        I have discussed this many places, but those who are opposed to cutting edge research won’t let me post without attacking me and disrupting the exchange on this and other web sites. Check out the following at the end:

        “The MidWest 9/11 Truth Conference, Part 2” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAEvw2CjAYQ

  8. When you see the size of the steel in those buildings, and most of it disappears in 1/10th of a second,…

    What? That is not true. What a stupid thing to say.

    There isn’t any big steel on the roofs of the buildings across the street so it didn’t go there and there isn’t any steel on the street outside the front doors of Building #1…

    OK Roger. Just pick two locations where there was a lack of debris and forget about all of the other steel in the vicinity. That is tantamount to concentrating on a gorilla’s palms to try to prove that it’s a hairless animal.

    I as well am “a truther” but I feel I am on the periphery because I don’t accept the controlled demolition perspective…

    Even if you think a fuckin’ DEW was used, it was still a controlled demolition. Get your terminology straight. The only way it couldn’t have been a controlled demolition is if you believe in the NIST report.

    1. Travis:

      Regarding my statement of steel being destroyed into powder in 1/10th of a second, You said…. “What? That is not true. What a stupid thing to say.”

      The building was 110 stories high and destroyed in 9-10 seconds, that makes it about 1/10th of a second per floor. Stupid means you know better and think it anyways, and ignorance is you don’t have the facts. I’d say I got that right.

      You said… ” Just pick two locations where there was a lack of debris and forget about all of the other steel in the vicinity.”

      Sure there is steel around but not on any of the roofs of the surrounding buildings across the street. If there was set charges of explosives in sufficient quantities to turn any steel into powder, it would have sent the big steel that didn’t turn to powder on the roofs. There is NONE. Only aluminum siding. So anyone here reading this has to explain why these buildings don’t have big steel on them. After all they are much shorter then the Towers.

      The only damage to the buildings across the street is on the lowers floors but not sufficient to warrant taken those buildings down. All were repaired.

      The debris that is there on the street isn’t deep enough to say this is the whole building. Like the reporters were saying that day….. “It disappeared…. just evaporated”. Stairwell B had 14 people in it so nothing came down on top of them to crush them nor was there any “charges” in their area to burn them or kill them. And that is the highest part of the building that was left.

      You said…. “Even if you think a fuckin’ DEW was used, it was still a controlled demolition.”

      Your right and in the same vane if it was Arabs that did it that also would be a conspiracy because there was more then one.

      What everyone in the movement means when it was “controlled demolition” is to mean using thermite or similar explosives to destroy the building, and I’m saying that isn’t what destroyed them because the evidence reveals it couldn’t have been. And it wasn’t nukes because even you queried “Was there any radiation?”.

      We can all see, for the most part it was turned into dust and fine powder one floor at a time. What did it I have no idea, but whatever it was, it wasn’t explosives even though there was big “BOOMS” before the Towers came apart from the top down.

  9. Bob McIlwaine is living proof that it isn’t an insult to the victims’ families to question what happened. I find it depressing that 15 years later there are still so many people who staunchly believe the official story, even with all the existing evidence to the contrary. What burns my butt is that they are often guilty of the very things they accuse truthers of e.g cherry picking evidence to support their theory, accusing us of not being able to handle the truth.

    1. Peter Anderson:

      Just to get it straight, I don’t believe the official story and I also believe it was certain individuals in the USA Government that orchestrated this destruction to hide all the theft from the Stock Market and Enron. I also don’t believe any planes hit any building that day.

      I also believe there was explosions before the Towers came apart and Bobby Mc. was killed by the glass shrapnel and concussion. I also believe others were killed by these explosions and their skin peeled off their faces and arms.

      I think it is erroneous to think these were set charges when Firemen explained the oxygen bottles and Scott Packs were exploding on the trucks and there was NO FIRE in the trucks. Whatever it was that was causing these explosions was “MAYBE” the same thing that killed Bobby Mc. A steam boiler can also explode and so can transformers as well Natural Gas. Static electricity can cause a fuel tank to explode, That’s why when we picked up fuel at a refinery we always hooked the ground cable to the truck.

      I watched thousands of hours of videos and write ups and not one of them showed a picture or anyone seeing any explosives, yet the vast majority of thruthers are adamant it was set explosives. Has anyone seen explosives hauled in a truck and what it looks like and where it is made?

        1. Craig McKee:

          You said….. “Roger, you sound like a debunker, not a truther.”

          Why? because I question the validity of what peoples perception is? I question everything because I don’t trust anyone. Am I supposed to believe an expert just because he/she is an expert? How about Loizeaux of CDI who states it wasn’t Controlled Demolition. This guy does it for a living.

          You said regarding firemen…. “These people know the difference between the kind of explosions you might see in a fire and those that are deliberately planted. More than 30 of them used the word, BOMBS, in their testimonies.”

          I am well aware of what they said and I also heard the explosions in the videos. Please explain how anyone who hears an explosion can tell it is a bomb or something else going off with the echo reverberating in among the buildings. We all are prone to saying it is a BOMB because we assume that’s what it must be. Not everything that goes “BOOMMMMMM” is a bomb. Do you actually think the Fire Department got some explosives to show the firefighter the difference in the sound of different explosions? Loizeaux said himself that everything that goes BOOM isn’t a bomb. Would you know the difference between a gas tank holding propane and a stick of dynamite exploding?

          And…. why would they have a course that explains the difference in the sound of a bomb, and Natural Gas exploding? This almost sounds like the “Harley Guy” who explains in detail what supposedly happened.

          If I heard several explosions after somebody said Arabs were involved, I would think bombs…. until I actually started thinking.

          You said…. “All you have is speculation.”

          It’s only speculation when a person is guessing as to what actually happened. Could you tell me if there was fires in the building other then the big fireball that occurred for a few seconds in the upper portions of the building? And how did they get started?

          You said…. “….the kind of explosions you might see in a fire ”

          What?????? first there is an explosion then there is fire. There isn’t any fire if Natural Gas is leaking and going to the lowest portion of the building because it is heavier then air. All you need is a spark to set it off.

          Your not an expert and your telling me it had to be BOMBS. Did the firemen see BOMBS? Firemen also saw the bottles of oxygen going off in their trucks ….SSSSSboom SSSSSSboom.

          Your so intent on getting the guys who did this your willing to say “BOMBS” just to get them. You wont even consider it was something else that caused the destruction. And don’t get me wrong, these guys destroyed the buildings (all seven of them) and I don’t think they did it with bombs. And imagine that….. only the Buildings with the WTC prefix.

          Tell me something Craig, what does a bomb sound like?

          1. I have to agree with Craig. You really do sound more like a debunker from the international Skeptics forum than a truther. I’m reminded of when, many years ago, debunker Ron Wieck was interviewing a truther who talked about explosions. Without missing a beat, Wieck, said “well sure, you’ve got coffee machines and microwave ovens blowing up.”

            1. Adam Syed:

              Well what exactly is a truther?

              Is that somebody who just accepts without thinking some scenario that is perceived as truth when it’s full of holes?

              The day all of this occurred, reporters coudn’t believe there is hardly any debris considering there was 110 story buildings standing there.

              When I post the famous ambulance outside the front doors of building #1, the only thing on the pavement of the street in front of those doors is aluminum siding. The ambulance is not damaged and there is no steel. That’s not made up.

              You never commented on it neither did Craig and your truthers.

              There isn’t any steel on the surrounding buildings either. Just aluminum siding. You never commented on that.

              We all heard the explosions and right away we can say definitely these were BOMBS. Why? Do you know for a fact these were BOMBS?????? The fact that the “bathtub” was not damaged at all reveals it was something else that exploded but not sufficient to damage the bathtub. The manner of the destruction was to take care of not damaging the rest of Manhattan but only the buildings that had the evidence of all the thefts done in the Stock Market and Enron. Only the WTC Complex was destroyed which reveals they were slated for destruction to hide something.

              “Way to go” in comparing what I am saying to microwaves and pop machines exploding.

              While your here, why don’t you explain why all the Scott Packs were exploding on the Fire Trucks when they were not on fire? Whatever it was that was causing these things to explode was probably the same thing that was causing the explosions in the basement. You don’t know if it was columns or supports that were being blown apart or something else that exploded.

              We definitely know the Scott Packs were exploding because they could see it explode but not in the basement. I think your an intelligent person so explain it for us.

              1. >There isn’t any fire if Natural Gas is leaking and going to the lowest portion of the building because it is heavier then air.

                Natural gas is less dense than air and rises. Propane, however, is denser than air. Take it from a poolman.

                1. poolman: I stand corrected. It’s always nice to have a guy like you around that actually knows.

                  I delivered Propane in winter and assumed Natural Gas was the same. I collect scrap metal as a side line and often go to dumps to see what people throw away. A guy that I knew was in charge of the dump and went down a dry well to turn off a water line and was overcome by gas and died. They said Methane killed him. It didn’t happen before but this time it filled the well with gas and didn’t dissipate.

                  Since your familiar with this gas, will it go down an elevator shaft in a down draft? The freight elevators went all the way to the top in contrast to the public elevators only went 30 floors at one ride.

                  The reason why I ask is there were explosions and I’m trying to figure out if there was something else other then set charges in the basement. No-one saw anything like charges but most everyone heard explosions and assume it was advance detonation to bring the Towers down. It don’t make sense when there are 47 huge six inch steel beams in the basement and these are blown up so half an hour later the building could be destroyed from the top down at one floor per 1/10th of a second.

                  1. Roger, I do not know about the elevator shaft. I do know there are plenty of testimonies to explosions and detonations. There is also the seismic data. I don’t think the denser gases as volatile. They will ignite but do not burn as hot. They can displace the breathable air in a contained space. The guy you knew that was poised by the methane was probably close to the source as methane is less dense than air.

                    There is a photo of the ‘art students’ in the space they occupied that shows boxes of charges stacked behind them. I can’t remember where I saw that now, but it eludes to some of these being put in place years in advance. The people that perpetrated this are long term planners. There were hints this event was going to happen for decades.

                    I personally think several methods were employed. The molten steel and pulverized concrete tell me it was more than the standard demolition charges normally used in the taking out of buildings.

                    1. poolman:

                      The only reason why I mentioned the elevator shafts is there was explosions high in the buildings, supposedly done by flying aircraft going into the Towers. I since then have read and seen the videos that explain it is virtually impossible that planes did that damage. The only other concept it could be is those explosions were materials or jet fuel brought into the buildings to make it look like aircraft did it.

                      The damage done to the building would undoubtedly have severed the means to make heat on each floor where the explosion took place. If it was electric heat then there has to be transformers to handle that amount of electricity. in the basement.or on the service floors. I own a dry transformer to make more then 220 electricity to bale aluminum, but the amount of electricity in that building would require oil transformers that will explode if shorted out.

                      If it was gas heaters then these would be severed and letting gas out. There were people in the hole caused by the big fire explosion waving their jackets so it wasn’t an on going fire sufficient to damage the big steel.

                      I agree with you this was being planned for a long time. Something you should know, explosives have a limited shelf life and they deteriorate so can’t be counted on to do the job required. A friend of mine hauled explosives and they have to make it fresh” and then delivered to the job all over North America. I would love to see those boxes the art students saw or was being shown in the video. It’s kinda funny since most everyone thinks it is controlled demolition and this isn’t broadcasted every day in the Alternate Media on the inter-net. Did this material have a copper jacket?

                      I worked in a foundry for awhile to see how things were done with cast iron that I sold to these people by the truck load. Metal doesn’t stay molten for very long, especially if there is carbon in it to make steel. You also need forced air to make it melt and soon as the forced air is cut off it begins to harden. There isn’t much for “air” under the debris in the basement, so what was making steel molten? Was the steel electrified appearing to be molten? Thermite burns off so it isn’t a continual supply to keep it molten.

                      Also, if there was all this heat coming out of the debris who could walk on it to cut the metal that was there with torches. I hauled black top and that was hot enough for me to walk on, if metal is molten you would fry your feet up to your knees. It doesn’t make sense. Cut a piece of iron and the pieces that fall on the floor will burn through the soles of your boots if you step on them.

                      A roast cooks in the oven at 350 degrees but guys could walk on the debris when it is 1500 degrees doesn’t make any sense at all. Put your hand in a microwave and see what happens, and there is no fire to burn it. It’ll burn a piece of meat into a burnt charcoal while sitting on a paper plate.

                      I don’t think any kind of explosives were used except that big orange ball of fire outside the buildings when a plane supposedly hit the Towers.

                      Look at the Towers unravel in slow motion and you wont see fire, but it is turning to dust at 1/10th of a second per floor.

                    2. Roger, I went on a search and misspoke. The boxes pictured actually contained electrical bus bars. Here is a link regarding them:

                      http://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/apps/blog/show/8636674-preparing-the-wtc-for-destruction

                      The whole event has so many facets, it really takes time to piece it all together. There are so many diversions too. It is easy to get sucked in. This one event is really only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the lies and deception we in the west have been living under for more than my lifetime.

  10. There’s no way around this one. The figures arguing conventional ordinance just do not add up. The figures for directed nuclear devices, do.

      1. Travis:

        You said to fremo.remo…..”Perhaps you would feel more comfortable at Jim Fetzer’s website.”

        That’s the problem with the truthers is lets split them all up so they can never come to an understanding together. I don’t agree with Fetzer or elOnce and others on this nuclear thing because each floor came apart in 1/0th of a second. That means each floor had to be rigged while people were still working in the building. Each steel girder had at least two hours of fire suppressant asbestos sprayed on it and then covered with drywall or other decorative sheeting.

        If you can imagine an army of guys dressed in protective suits walking around the building pulling off walls to get at the girders that are covered in asbestos while people are conducting business on computers…… . Yeah right……SMH

        1. There are theories it was built with its destruction in mind. 33 years is a significant number to certain groups and that was the life of the twins.

          I know concrete and to see it turn to dust rather than break into chunks is very substantial.

          The overview after the event with craters and temperatures recorded by USGS is also significant.

    1. fremo.remo.:

      You said…. “The figures arguing conventional ordinance just do not add up. The figures for directed nuclear devices, do.”

      Nuclear devices don’t add up as well. whether “mini” or “otherwise”. Like Travis asked before, was there any radiation?

      1. Rudi had 115 dump trucks lined up to haul away the debris before any of it could be studied to determine what had been the cause of the buildings’ destruction. Judy Wood astutely noticed that they were not only taking debris out but bringing in 100s of tons of dirt, which was spread over the debris, so that initially the pile grew rather than diminished. This was also done by the Soviets in response to the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in 1986 to absorb radiation. Many of the elements discovered by the US Geological Survey, by the way, only exist in radioactive forms. So some of the arguments here are simply absurd.

        Other arguments could be made, including that the final spire of the North Tower seems to run counter to the use of nukes. But even at Hiroshima, the scaffolding of a lone church remained after the enormous blast had done its damage. And these were mini or micro nukes, whose use has also been confirmed by the debilitating medical maladies incurred by first responders and residents of the area, which include non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid, pancreatic, brain, esophageal, prostate and blood and plasma cancers at rates far above normal, which Jeff Prager was among the first to point out and where recent estimates have placed the number affected at close to 70,000.

        1. Many of the elements discovered by the US Geological Survey, by the way, only exist in radioactive forms. So some of the arguments here are simply absurd.

          Could you please present the evidence for these assertions. I have heard these USGS allusions many times without you so much as providing a link to the analysis.

          Steven Jones analyzed the dust for radiation and came up with nil, and the amount of tritium quantified was inconsequential.

          1. Steve Jones studied a few minuscule samples from an apartment in the vicinity of Ground Zero. The US Geological Survey drew samples from 35 locatoins. You must not be taking the time to watch the videos that I have posted, because Don Fox (Session 7) discusses them extensively.

            Jeff Prager, 9/11: AMERICA NUKED (on-line), was the first to focus on the USGS dust studies:

            Part 1: http://www.datafilehost.com/download-79644cfa.html

            Part2: http://www.datafilehost.com/download-51eec327.html

        2. jfetzer2012:

          The dirt that was brought in was to cover the ongoing destruction of the debris into finer particles. As you pointed out Dr. Woods noticed this. I think she had dubbed this as “fuming” when there was nothing there to burn and people were walking through it.

          You said…. “This was also done by the Soviets in response to the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in 1986 to absorb radiation.”

          From what I understand it didn’t stop the radiation and the place is a “ghost town”. I worked with a trucker who was a child at that time, who came from Chernobyl and they had to leave everything behind.

          You said…. “Many of the elements discovered by the US Geological Survey, by the way, only exist in radioactive forms. So some of the arguments here are simply absurd. ”

          Interesting you say that. Does that mean this is the only way these elements can be formed? It’s only absurd if you don’t know what else could do this, thinking only nuclear is the only way.

          You said…. “Other arguments could be made, including that the final spire of the North Tower seems to run counter to the use of nukes. But even at Hiroshima, the scaffolding of a lone church remained after the enormous blast had done its damage.”

          Yes we all saw the remains of buildings that survived the extreme heat of the blast of the Atomic Bomb. When I look at the destruction of the Towers, there is no fire as it unraveled into dust.

          That final spire was 70 stories high made of heavy steel yet it melted away and was not found in the debris as a long spear stuck in the basement or bedrock. The picture with a 45 foot flatdeck parked on the concrete at the very bottom after the clean up, doesn’t show any damage to the concrete floor. So this 70 story high heavy steel didn’t go down that far. What then made it disappear? Were talking 6 inch steal at the bottom and the highest point was Stairwell B with 14 people still alive and they are not radiated. If Ladder ^ had not stayed behind to save that woman who couldn’t walk, they would all have died. But they didn’t.

          In fact none of those people felt any heat, and neither did the folks running in the dust. If it was something producing enormous heat to turn steel into powder how come the dust was cooler then the ambient temperature of the day???

          And what caused the thousand or so vehicles to catch fire but only certain parts burned whereas plastic didn’t. Are you saying “nukes” can be selective up to two blocks away and burn one but not the other????

          You said…. “And these were mini or micro nukes, whose use has also been confirmed by the debilitating medical maladies incurred by first responders and residents of the area, which include non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid, pancreatic, brain, esophageal, prostate and blood and plasma cancers at rates far above normal”

          Your smart phone will do some of that and so will vaccines. People living in the vicinity of Radio Towers are suffering all sorts of cancers including breast cancer for those only a block away. Your supposing all of this was caused by radiation from Nukes but Electro Magnetic Radiation does the same.

          A cheap tester for fifty bucks here in Canada will show you your clock radio by your head when sleeping is just as harmful as your microwave when it is on. and don’t forget the wifi by your computer. A little better one is $200.00 and check your smart meter sending signals to other smart meters.

          My eyes were opened when I saw this film……

          Then I started checking all the other things this involves and it is absolutely dangerous. So did all this sickness come from “nukes”? Remember, asbestos is deadly also and weakens the immune system. did these people go to doctors to get a “shot” to help them. Listen to this guy….

          Remember the towers were covered with aluminum and aluminum will wreck your immune system especially if you breath in fine powder that gets into the bloodstream.

          Do mini nukes go off without any heat?

  11. This is the DOOR. A real live door opens on the forensics of ground zero .
    Questions and anomalies never explained by conventional ordinance capabilities over 15 years are absolutely resolved one after another after another in proper form, If you sit back and have a LISTEN.
    WTC was a nuclear event. the Hoffman ’10-fold’ energy disparity, the speed, the damage fields, WTC 6 hole, the observable energy flows’, the temperatures, the dustification of 110 acres of concrete in 9 and 11 seconds respectively (NIST figures) the USGS samples, the heat, the illness, the vaporisation of thousands of tonne of steel in mid-air….all are answered in these podcasts.
    I want to THANK mr. Fetzer and every person he presented in these magnificent and weaponised discussions. Anyone asking for empirical evidence of nuclear fission/fusion CANNOT have listened to any of them to ask questions-of-proof. Even a miserable artist with no science (me) can hear and understand Don FOX explain the what and how of finding 54.63 times the normal background levels of tritiated water at WTC 6, 11 days after the event.
    It was nuked!
    The evidence is presented in long discussive form, from Intensely interesting angles by a wonderfully dispirit group of men who obviously know what they are talking about.
    objective forensic proofs.
    The presentations and analysis are utterly credible and compelling.
    Wonderful.

  12. I will re-post here what I posted on the 911Teleconference list serve in direct response to Jim Fetzer’s mini nuke theory.

    To those promoting the nuke theory,

    A “nuclear device” could not possibly be the cause of the destruction of the WTC towers. The reason is that: for the towers to come down straight and level each and every core column must be completely severed almost simultaneously. If even a single column were not completely severed the building would topple over in one direction or another because of the resistance of the remaining column(s). This is just a fact and it is why explosive demolition experts painstakingly place cutter charges on each column which sever it completely. Now if a “nuclear device or devices” were placed in the basement areas let us say inside the core column area and those devices were actually powerful enough to sever all those massive steel core columns simultaneously without actually being placed directly on the core columns you would necessarily have to have an explosion or explosions powerful enough to vaporize most of the lower floors. In order to destroy the steel the explosion has to be powerful enough to do the job and it is a fact of life that an explosion powerful enough to cut all those massive steel columns would easily obliterate the rest of the buildings contents such as sheet rock, ducting, plumbing pipes, concrete floors and floor pans, etc etc. All those structures would be child’s play to destroy compared to the hulking steel columns. So how can anyone believe, especially a professor of logic like Jim Fetzer, that a “nuclear device” could be somehow used to destroy these gigantic steel columns and yet leave the lower floors and even the basement levels relatively intact? We know from William Rodriguez and others who corroborate his story that he and a number of others were in the basement when some type of explosion took place, moments before the plane struck, that injured very badly at least one man on the level below. So how can anyone claim this was a “nuclear device”? We cannot obviously. So the next logical leap we would have to make is that the nukes were not used until the final detonation right? So if that were true then how could the perps be sure that the earlier explosion Rodriguez and others reported would not damage or displace these nuclear devices, or render them inoperative? Assuming they were not destroyed in the initial explosion how can we then explain the fact that the lower floors were not vaporized by such a powerful explosion capable of severing all those massive steel columns? How could the destruction of the towers start at the top and work down as we can clearly see in the videos of destruction? The answer to all this of course is that it is absurd to claim nukes were used to bring down the towers. Any professor of logic worth his salt would know that of course. The last man out alive from the WTC William Rodriguez was escaping the tower right as it was coming down so he and others in the area would have been literally at ground zero of a nuclear explosion powerful enough to destroy all that steel and yet he is alive today.

    In addition to those inescapably huge logic problems with the nuke theory another issue is that nukes were not necessary at all since controlled demolition techniques could be, and were in my opinion, used to take down the towers in a “controlled” manner as we saw on 9/11. Nukes have a big drawback as well since the radiation signature of a nuke can be traced back to the reactor where the radioactive material came from. So why take the risk of using a nuke when ordinary, not so traceable, explosives can be used to do the job and do it right so that the towers did not topple over to one side or the other? I am afraid that the nuke theory is disinformation my friends. Disinformation designed to cast doubt on the evidence we have that explosives and nano-thermite were used to melt and weaken and then blow up the towers. A logical person could see this is true from a mile away.

    The “no plane” theories are much much worse by the way and have no basis at all in reality. The logic problems associated with that whopper of a lie are so massive I simply cannot accept that an honest logical person would ever promote them.

    Arguments for the nuke theory I will address as they rear their ugly heads in the future include:

    1. Too much of the material the buildings were made of is not there at ground zero after the event. (this is baloney, just ask the people saying it to prove how much material was left in and around ground zero after the demolition. Make sure they show their work and calculations they used to quantify all those misshaped piles of rubble everywhere. Show how they quantified all the dust that traveled out even into the water. Show how they calculated all the debris launched on top of and into surrounding buildings etc. Ask them to show you their work on how these calculations were actually made that prove their claims that massive amounts of materials were “missing”. I bet they can’t show their work because they didn’t do any.)

    2. There were all these elements detected around NYC that wouldn’t/couldn’t be there unless a “nuclear event” took place. (also baloney since there are trace levels of almost everything almost everywhere. Want an example? How about a non radio-active element that most people think is not near them all the time which is VERY toxic and dangerous? Mercury. Mercury if you do not know this is in your so called “green” light bulbs. It is also in you tooth fillings unless you specifically request as I do that your dentist use another type of filling material. Folks the fact is that radio-active particles are almost everywhere because of Fukushima and Chernobyl and Three Mile Island etc etc.)

    This should be a slam dunk, easy, and logical conclusion for everyone to reach that the nuke theory is hogwash and the no plane theory is tripe but we will see now won’t we? I hope we can all move past this obvious bullshit and start taking real action in the truth movement instead of endlessly arguing about disinformation theories. We need to be doing real, constructive, and most importantly effective activism not allowing purveyors of disinformation to drain our time and energy resources.

    Sincerely,

    Adam Ruff

    On the listserve at least I received no reply to the above message from Fetzer or from anyone else for that matter.

    So tell me please how a nuke powerful enough to cut those gigantic 4 inch thick core columns would not easily destroy the bottom few floors of the building?

    1. Great points. I would also like to add the the massive amount of heat liberated in a nuclear event always creates a mushroom cloud from a column of extremely hot, and therefor less dense, air.

      If a nuclear device were used, you would not have so much a gravitational collapse, but a certain amount of upward force. And since any nuclear explosion is rather large due to the essential critical mass of the isotope used, this would be immediately perceptible in the videos of the destruction.

      No high Geiger counts were quantified from the debris.

      No cases of radiation burns or radiation sickness were reported.

      Moreover, there was no reported electromagnetic pulse.

      In July 1962, the US carried out the Starfish Prime test, exploding a 1.44 megaton bomb 400 kilometres (250 mi) above the mid-Pacific Ocean. This demonstrated that the effects of a high-altitude nuclear explosion were much larger than had been previously calculated. Starfish Prime made those effects known to the public by causing electrical damage in Hawaii, about 1,445 kilometres (898 mi) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlights, setting off numerous burglar alarms and damaging a microwave link.[8]

    2. Adam Ruff:

      I don’t agree with J. Fetzer that there was “nukes” used in the destruction of the Towers.

      I also disagree with you when you say…. “….(this is baloney, just ask the people saying it to prove how much material was left in and around ground zero after the demolition. Make sure they show their work and calculations they used to quantify all those misshaped piles of rubble everywhere.”

      First of all there is steel of all sizes in the debris but not anywhere near the amount that was in the building. The famous ambulance outside the front doors of Tower #1 reveal there isn’t any steel there and the ambulance doesn’t have a dent. A fireman is walking on the pavement between the aluminum siding.

      Even in Fetzers video shots of Building #6, an eight story building, is cored out with absolutely nothing in the hole right down to the main floor. Right next to is Tower #1 or should I say what’s left of it, is leaning on Building #6 and the steel of the Lobby is seen with no debris. No kinks in that steel to say there was 110 stories come down on it.

      So both sides of Tower #1 doesn’t have anything to speak of, not on the street where the ambulance is and not in or around Building # 6.

      That narrows down the area where there is supposed to be debris.

      Next there is Stairwell B where fourteen people survived and they are not crushed by 110 stories coming down on them. They are not burnt nor are they hurt by any explosives of any kind. So there is no pile of debris there either. This also means there is no controlled “demolition” using set charges because these people didn’t get crushed or hurt by this method of destruction.

      You said…. “If even a single column were not completely severed the building would topple over in one direction or another because of the resistance of the remaining column(s). This is just a fact and it is why explosive demolition experts painstakingly place cutter charges on each column which sever it completely.”

      You have a problem Mr. Ruff, one center core column was not cut and it stood seventy stories high. It didn’t fall over and it didn’t spear down through the basement into the concrete that was on bedrock because it is undamaged after everything was cleared out and a flat deck trailer was parked on it. Since there wasn’t any cutter charges on this “spire” nor was it damaged by the “nuke” theory because it was still standing there for all of New York to see.

      Where did it go?

      You said…. “Show how they calculated all the debris launched on top of and into surrounding buildings etc.”

      I don’t know how to do those kind of calculations but I can see there isn’t any steel on top of the buildings across the street. The only thing on those buildings is aluminum siding. The only damage is on the lower part of those buildings and in some places the sidewalk is bare. That means the space you think the Towers went is very small.

      As for it being all in the basement there is nothing under Buildings #4 and #5 and the lights are still on the next day. Most of the trains are in tact with no dents on them and there is nothing under Building #6 and the building is cored out down to the Main Floor.

      You said of Jim Fetzer and others like him….. ” I hope we can all move past this obvious bullshit and start taking real action in the truth movement instead of endlessly arguing about disinformation theories. We need to be doing real, constructive, and most importantly effective activism not allowing purveyors of disinformation to drain our time and energy resources.”

      The points I pointed out to you regarding what you said is disinformation and your guilty of the very thing you are accusing Jim Fetzer.

      There definitely was explosions but your guessing at what it is caused by. The same logic you want everybody to have is not going to be had, if a premise is false in the first place. I’m a no-planer and a No-nukeer, and a no controlled demolition with thermite.

      One thing we have in common is we both believe it was orchestrated by people in the US Government and the buildings were destroyed.

      1. Roger,

        You said: “First of all there is steel of all sizes in the debris but not anywhere near the amount that was in the building.”

        That is a completely false statement based on pure conjecture. You have not done any calculations on the debris to determine how much was left in and around ground zero. You have no idea how much debris was ejected into and on top of other buildings. You have no idea how tall the various piles of debris were. You have no idea how much debris filled in the “bathtub”. Simply put YOU DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH DEBRIS WAS LEFT AFTER THE EVENT. You and Jim Fetzer are making naked assertions about something you don’t know.

        Simply making the claim that “steel is missing” doesn’t make it true you know. Did you measure and weigh each piece of steel as it was removed from the area? NO! So stop making this false claim. It isn’t even possible for you or Fetzer or anyone else to know how much steel and debris was left behind because you have no way to measure the size, width, depth, and overall weight of the material left in the pile in and around ground zero. NO WAY! You don’t know Roger and if you do not admit that then you are dishonest, simple as that. If you knew how much was really there after the whole thing was over you would be able to answer the following questions:

        How many square feet was the bathtub under the WTC complex? How many square feet of the bathtub was filled in by debris from the towers? What percentage of that debris was steel and what was the total weight of that steel?

        How many square feet wide and long was the pile of debris at ground level in and around ground zero?

        Measured from ground level how many feet high were the various piles of debris and how did you measure the total weight and volume of the debris in each irregularly shaped pile?

        Measured in pounds how much material from the WTC was turned into dust? How many pounds traveled out to the water and then sank into the water? How many square feet of lower Manhattan was covered by dust and how thick was it in each area? How much did say 10 square feet of the dust weigh if it was an even 2 inches deep?

        What was the total weight of the entire structure and entire contents of tower #1? Same question for Tower #2 and building 6, and 7 etc.

        So Roger lets see your answers or an admission of the fact that you have no God damned idea of how much debris was really there after the event and the whole meme about there being “missing material” has been disinformation from the start and based on nothing but pure speculation. This is not a game man, admit it, you don’t know. So STOP making claims you cannot back up with evidence. I am so sick of this shit, having to go through this disinformation over and over and over again when it should be completely obvious to any rational and logical person that it is disinformation.

        By the way Judy Woods bullshit is largely dependent on this false claim that all this material is “missing” so if anyone brings her disinformation into this again they had better first answer the questions above and prove first that the debris could be quantified.

        1. Craig, I would observe that Adam’s response to Roger is loaded with abusive language. You have gone after me for far less. I am sorry, but you need to delete this post or have it revised. Adam is a very hostile person and his questions about very specific quantities are intended to end discussion, not promote it. They are for the most part, like him, unreasonable on their face.

          1. James Henry Fetzer:

            You don’t have to worry about me. I;m a big boy and I don’t cower to that kind of talk. I’ve been very busy so Haven’t replied like I want to and will address Mr. Syed . I needed some savvy from a friend of mine on how to download pictures into my post. I’ll be back.

              1. Jim, you worry about what you’re writing, and I’ll worry about everyone following the rules. And the same can be said for Adam’s sadness that we are talking about topics he considers to be disinfo.

                I removed one gratuitous sentence of Adam’s, but he does say that IF Roger keeps repeating points he has no evidence for then he is behaving like a provocateur. You’ve made the same accusation on this very thread, Jim.

        2. Adam Ruff:

          Finally i get back to your post. Regarding there not being enough steel debris in the destruction of the Towers, you said……. “That is a completely false statement based on pure conjecture. You have not done any calculations on the debris to determine how much was left in and around ground zero. You have no idea how much debris was ejected into and on top of other buildings.”

          I know you can’t show me any steel on top of the buildings because there is none. There is aluminum siding but no steel and there are hundred of photos showing that.

          So lets go around the sight of WTC and see what we have. First I want to show you the famous ambulance shot parked right out side the front doors of Tower # one and a picture of what it looked like before the destruction……

          Now pay close attention to what the steel looks like in the lobby. This is also where Bobby Mc. was killed by shrapnel glass due to the concussion of an explosion……

          This following picture is right outside the front doors……

          Do you see any steel on the street where the fireman is walking? Do you see any steel behind the ambulance where the front doors were?

          I know your going with the concept it all went underground, so look at Building #6 which is an eight story building right next to Tower #1…..

          Notice the round roof hasn’t been damaged nor is there any steel on it. Building #6 is hollow like it was cored out an apple with only the outside walls standing there. Also not how the Lobby of building #1 is leaning on Building #6 and there isn’t any steel in the hole. Just in case you think it went under ground, here is a shot inside Building #6….

          Note, it is cored out right down to the main floor with a pipe sticking out right in the middle, so nothing collapsed here nor is it under the main floor. Count the floors. So Tower #1 didn’t go this way.

          Well, lets look at Building #4 and see what happened here……

          Here we see the building is cut off as if a giant clever cut it perfectly straight and the part that is missing is at ground level. But what is really interesting here is the lights are still on in the delivery garage under the main floor so no steel here except for some facade steel laying flat across the main floor. Now think…., if there was an explosion down here, don’t you think the lights would go out? It didn’t under Building #4 and #5 but there was an explosion that killed Bobby Mc.

          Remember what the steel of the Lobby looks like, here is a picture of both Lobbies and what’s left of them and notice the depth of the debris….

          Do you really think there is 110 floors of debris in this picture?

          Just so you get an idea of what the big steel looks like, here is a hole the firemen are climbing down a ladder and in the middle of the picture is big steel with a man walking on it….

          Also considering there is so much heat and fire down here, I guess that’s why one fireman is standing in a puddle of water. This is climbing down from the main floor.

          Now after they cleaned up of the area of the complex down to the seventh level built on bedrock, here is a picture of a 53 ft flat deck tandem trailer. It also reveals there isn’t any damage whatsoever of the bathtub walls. Everybody remembers the steel spire made of big steel 70 stories high which just disappeared. Look on the concrete floor and do you see where big steel weighing a thousand tons seventy stories high spear down into this concrete? It didn’t fall down the street for three blocks but it did go away. If there was controlled demolition or nukes, explain why this steel was still standing? It didn’t go down because there is no evidence it did.

          Let’s look some more where the Mall is…….

          Were running out of room here because so far we don’t see 110 floors of big steel.

          The highest part of the debris is three stories high where 14 people survived because they wouldn’t leave a woman behind. They obviously weren’t crushed by big steel, nor were they cooked by “nukes” nor were they blown to bits by charges of controlled demolition.

          You asked… “Measured in pounds how much material from the WTC was turned into dust? ”

          Most of the two Towers which includes turning most of the steel to rust dust. As you can see the Lobby isn’t filled with the building that was above them, nor did anything come down to bend the Lobby steel because it is standing there. It kinda blew all over Manhattan.

          If all this blasting was going on with whatever you think destroyed the building, how come the paper in the buildings didn’t get burnt. These are just a few pictures that reveal it wasn’t blasted to dust with explosives.

          You warned….. “By the way Judy Woods bullshit is largely dependent on this false claim that all this material is “missing” so if anyone brings her disinformation into this again they had better first answer the questions above and prove first that the debris could be quantified.”

          You saw these pictures which is just a few of thousands that reveal you don’t know what your talking about. Just curious, what exactly did Judy Wood say that’s got you so riled up? I mean if it is bullshit we certainly shouldn’t step in it. But I think your pile is bigger then her pile of bullshit so I’m wearing my muck boots.

          1. I notice you cannot quantify the amount of steel left in and around ground zero. With all of your photos and all of your talk the bottom line is that you do not know how much steel was left after it was all over. Therefore you are making an assertion that (steel is missing) without evidence to support it. Period.

            No need to respond to any of your red herrings. You can’t quantify what was left. Your assertion is baseless speculation nothing more.

            1. Adam Ruff:

              I don’t know how to calculate in pounds or kilograms how much of the steel is left on the ground nor can you calculate it yourself by just looking at it. One thing for sure, what went into the buildings is sure not on the ground nor is any on top of the surrounding buildings, There is none outside the main doors of Tower #1 where the ambulance picture reveals, nor is there any steel attached to the aluminum siding. there isn’t any in the Mall nor in Building #6 because it is cored out and nothing there to measure or weigh.

              There is none on the pile where those 14 people survived in Stairwell B nor could any go by them into the basement.

              Your question is “silly” because you can’t weigh what isn’t there. That’s not a red herring Mr. Ruff, you can’t figure it out so try to be-little me. One thing I do know, is what steel looks like before it is chewed up in controlled demolition and after because I hauled both.

              Like the reporters on the day it happened said, “It just disappeared”. You can’t explain that nor can I, but the fact is it just ain’t there.

              1. Roger,

                Despite having asked you a few days ago to take a break, I allowed this comment because Adam’s comment was addressed to you. And I think your response very nicely summarizes your position, which you have repeated now many, many times. For this reason I would like this to be your last comment on this topic on this thread.

            2. Exactly. Those towers were mostly empty space and the remaining building materials are difficult to quantify. In fact, Roger Gloux has never once even attempted to make calculations that would support his Judy Wood innuendo.

              His main strategy is to crowd out as much useful conversation as he can by posting extremely prolix arguments with the largest photographs that he can possibly find.

              It doesn’t really matter to him if his arguments actually make sense; he just needs to create enough uncertainty over the real cause of demolition to keep the naive in a state of ambivalence.

              1. Figglesworth von Braun you said…. “Roger Gloux has never once even attempted to make calculations that would support his Judy Wood innuendo.”

                It is obvious your not keeping up to what the military has been releasing concerning laser technology. Your supposition this is “Judy Wood innuendo” reveals you turned your mind off, because the military is saying it. I never once mentioned Judy Wood.

                You said…. “His main strategy is to crowd out as much useful conversation as he can by posting extremely prolix arguments with the largest photographs that he can possibly find.”

                Pictures are worth a thousand words, and I didn’t see you commenting on them or explain why there isn’t any steel in the picture with the ambulance and a fireman walking on the pavement of a three lane street right where the front doors of Tower 1 was.

                It appears you want to squelch the fact there isn’t much material there to reveal this was 110 stories of building but now is virtually ground level at the front doors. Can you explain how a 110 story building didn’t cover a three lane street in a controlled demolition?????

                I don’t think the destruction was because of pancake effect just like you don’t believe it. You assume you know how it was destroyed whereas I don’t know what was used to destroy it. We both know it was destroyed and who was engineering it. The big debate here is exactly HOW it was destroyed. Whatever destroyed the building was the same “thing” that caused the explosion that killed Bobby McIlvaine.

                I also don’t believe thermite was used in any form nor do I believe it was “nukes”. BUT…. the buildings were destroyed.

  13. Adam.
    To be very clear. My understanding the damage field attributable to nuclear discharges, as well as conventional incendiary/explosives at WTC, in no way attaches to ‘no-planes.

    I DO NOT subscribe to no-planes and Find no objective association one with the other; nor any advantage in pursuing it at this point. I am aware of it, but will not enter into it except to say, peripherally? Arranging the two together is of the Sunstein/Vermule school: ‘to-bundle’ coherent practical probability with equal and opposite extreme, to falsify the one most likely, with the other, less .

    I suggest we put it aside while concentrating on the essentials delivered by the GUESTS presenting their skill sets who can answer your particular concerns re:the mechanics of modern, extremely sophisticated, directed nuclear weapons discharge/destruction technology as it pertains to 4″ core columns in sub basement pre-weakening sequences at WTC.
    Reportedly 6″or 7″ steel box section in the sub-basement.

    Have you actually listened to these podcasts?

    1. No.

      The smallest nuclear explosion is 10 kilotons of TNT. This is just about the theoretical limit owing to the critical mass of plutonium. This is a very large explosion. A mini-nuke is an oxymoron.

      You cannot have a nuclear event in lower Manhattan without thousands of radiation-poisoned spectators and a nuclear EMP.

      In other words, there would be unmistakable chemical, electrical, physical, thermal, and clinical evidence if a nuclear device had been used. Nobody here, not even Jim Fetzer, has come up with the requisite proof that a nuclear device was used. All he can do is talk about USGS samples without even explaining, chemically, how they prove anything.

      There would have been no analog photographs of the event, since the radiation released would have over-exposed the entire roll in every camera; and the electromagnetic pulse would have likely disabled all of the digital cameras in the immediate vicinity.

      This nuclear device theory is not even worth considering.

      1. Have you listened to The presentations by J.Olson, C.Boldwyn, Mark Hightower, Dennis Cimino and Don Fox above?
        Have to listened to them?

        1. @Adam Ruff
          It is hogwash on at least ten levels.
          @fremo.remo.
          No I have not. But you are welcome to try to explain, in your own words, why this nuke theory should even be considered for one second.

          Not only would there be primary burns from the γ-rays, but there would be secondary burns from the dust as well. Here is a quote from Wikipedia.

          The fallout produced by the Castle Bravo test was unexpectedly strong. A white snow-like dust, nicknamed by the scientists “Bikini snow” and consisting of contaminated crushed calcined coral, fell for about 12 hours upon the Rongelap Atoll, depositing a layer of up to 2 cm. Residents suffered beta burns, mostly on the backs of their necks and on their feet,[40] and were resettled after three days. After 24–48 hours their skin was itching and burning; in a day or two the sensations subsided, to be followed after 2–3 weeks by epilation and ulcers. Darker-colored patches and raised areas appeared on their skin, blistering was uncommon. Ulcers formed dry scabs and healed. Deeper lesions, painful, weeping and ulcerated, formed on more contaminated residents; the majority healed with simple treatment. In general, the beta burns healed with some cutaneous scarring and depigmentation.

          This is just from the radioactive dust causing this. How many β-burns were reported in Manhatten after this event? Any burns from the people collecting the dust? Have you ever heard of acute radiation poisoning? This is what happened to Louis Slotin, a Los Alamos physicist who reflected too many neutrons back onto a plutonium sphere, causing it to become critical for a split second:

          At 3:20 p.m., the screwdriver slipped and the upper beryllium hemisphere fell, causing a “prompt critical” reaction and a burst of hard radiation.[8] At the time, the scientists in the room observed the blue glow of air ionization and felt a heat wave. Slotin experienced a sour taste in his mouth and an intense burning sensation in his left hand. He jerked his left hand upward, lifting the upper beryllium hemisphere and dropping it to the floor, ending the reaction. However, he had already been exposed to a lethal dose of neutron radiation…As soon as Slotin left the building, he vomited, a common reaction from exposure to extremely intense ionizing radiation. Slotin’s colleagues rushed him to the hospital, but the radiation damage was irreversible.[1]…Despite intensive medical care and offers from numerous volunteers to donate blood for transfusions, Slotin’s condition rapidly deteriorated…

          Over the next nine days, Slotin suffered an “agonizing sequence of radiation-induced traumas”, including severe diarrhea, reduced urine output, swollen hands, erythema, “massive blisters on his hands and forearms”, intestinal paralysis, and gangrene. He had internal radiation burns throughout his body, which one medical expert described as a “three-dimensional sunburn.” By the seventh day, he was experiencing periods of “mental confusion.” His lips turned blue and he was put in an oxygen tent. He ultimately experienced “a total disintegration of bodily functions” and slipped into a coma.[21][22] Slotin died at 11 a.m. on 30 May, in the presence of his parents.[23]

          You would have cases like these if a nuclear device was detonated in Manhattan. Would you like to see pictures of radiation burns?

  14. Can I ask a silly question, why did the basement core get exploded when the buildings unraveled from the top, down. I’m not disagreeing there was explosions, just questioning why people assume these were charges in the basement when it wasn’t necessary?

    So far this “nuke” thing sounds like it isn’t possible because of all the things Travis points out, and though most of you cling to charges bringing the building down, that also doesn’t make sense for the same reason Travis’ explanation regarding “nukes” isn’t feasible. How much explosive power is needed to turn thick steel into dust but not send unto the buildings across the street? There would be heavy steel weighing 50 tons sent over into New Jersey had their been that much put in the buildings. And the logistics of placing all of this in the buildings without anyone knowing or seeing it is not logical.considering all the steel was sprayed with asbestos for at least a two hour rating. When you look at the destruction in slow motion each floor is destroyed in sequence, not ten floors at a time. It looked like a sparkler that is used on halloween but without the fire.

    Was it Holmes who said to put every thing on the table and throw out all the impossibilities and what you have left will point to how it was done.

    There is ample evidence there wasn’t any planes hitting any building that day.

    There wasn’t any “fire” in the dust as the buildings unraveled at 1/10th of a second per floor which excludes “nukes” and “charges” put on beams.

    What causes steel to turn into rust powder but doesn’t burn the paper in the buildings?

    1. Roger,

      You said: “There is ample evidence there wasn’t any planes hitting any building that day.”

      That is absolutely false in fact the overwhelming evidence shows that planes did strike the towers. No plane theories are also pure disinformation. You cannot back up your assertion here with anything other than pure speculation. Pure speculation is NOT evidence. No plane theories are the worst and most blatant disinformation memes that exist in the truth movement.

      Show evidence right now of ANY holographic system in existence that was capable of projecting realistic looking, solid (not see through) airplanes into the clear blue sky above lower Manhattan on 9/11. Show us one system that actually exists in reality capable of that.

      OR if you are claiming video fakery instead of holograms.

      Explain how it is possible to simultaneously insert the digital image of a plane into over a dozen cameras in real time and get the trajectory correct from all those different POV’s? What software and hardware exists capable of doing that?

      Since all the videos were faked according to your disinformation meme who are the guilty parties that shot the videos? We know of the Naudet brothers for the first video but who were the guilty parties for the 20+ videos of the second plane that were “faked”?

      What analysis tools were used to analyze these supposedly fake videos and prove they were in fact faked? What video expert did the frame by frame analysis and exposed the tell tale signs of CGI on all these videos? What is his name and what are his credentials as far as video analysis goes? I would like to talk to him/her.

      How did the crowd on the street react to and follow the 2nd plane as it approached if it was not in fact really there? Was the crowd on the street in on the deception as well?

      How did all the supposedly faked videos get the angle and trajectory correct considering they were each shot from a different perspective?

      Roger we do not have time anymore to play nice so I am not going to assume anymore that you are just a little confused, bungling professor, type but generally a good person. If you do not substantiate your claims with real tangible evidence yet keep making the same bogus claims I am going to assume you are an agent provocateur here to intentionally disrupt and derail the truth movement.

      Also I wonder how an article about Bob McIlvaine got derailed into the nuke theory BS and now the no plane theory BS?

      1. Several of those posting here are distorting my position to make it easier to attack by creating a “straw man”. The proof of nukes is abundant and compelling: The buildings are blowing apart in every direction from the top down. They are being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. When it’s over, there is nothing IN THEIR FOOTPRINTS. (Adam is egregious in his misrepresentations of this point, which has to be intentional).

        The USGS dust studies revealed the presence of elements in quantities and correlations that would only have been present had this been a nuclear event. And the medical maladies that have been endured by the first responders and nearby residents provide further confirmation. As fremo.remo asks, have you even watched the presentations that I posted? Of course not: Your minds are made up and you don’t want to be bothered with facts!

        During the first Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference, I presented a response to questions raised on planes/no planes as well as how it was done. So here’s another session you can simply ignore:

        http://www.mobihealthnews.com/20068/phone-detection-of-parkinsons-approaches-99-percent-accuracy

        1. Wrong link! Sorry about that. You are entitled to skip that one, but not this or the others here:

          Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference Part 2 – YouTube
          Video for The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference, Part 2▶ 1:04:37
          Sep 28, 2013 – Uploaded by UC 9/11 Truth Alliance
          The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference was held at the Urbana Free Library on 22 September 2013, featuring …

          (*Editor’s note: This link was already posted on this thread, so anyone wishing to watch the video can go to the link above. Please do not post the same links more than once on a given thread. Thank you.-Craig McKee)

        2. The USGS dust studies revealed the presence of elements in quantities and correlations that would only have been present had this been a nuclear event.

          Oh really? Since Jim won’t post the USGS data, then I will. Here are the USGS mean values of some pertinent trace elements based on the fission decay chain of Uranium:

          Ba: 533ppm
          :::Cs: .64ppm
          :::Sr: 726ppm
          :::Zr: 0ppm

          From Wikipedia:For fission of uranium-235, the predominant radioactive fission products include isotopes of iodine, caesium, strontium, xenon and barium. Jim says that these elements are only to be found as a result of nuclear fission. This is not true. All of these elements can be found naturally. Here is a quote from Flame Photometric Determination of Strontium in Portland Cement.

          Data on the strontium content of cement were obtained by analyzing 128 cements collected from 30 states and 2 foreign countries. The values obtained ranged from .02% to .39%, calculated as strontium oxide. More than half the cements contained from .03 to .10% strontium oxide, with .05% as the modal value, .10% as the median, and .14% as the mean.

          So how much is .14% in parts per million? According to this calculator here, it is 14000ppm. This means that the mean Strontium Oxide concentrations measured from 128 cements was nearly twice the amount of Strontium quantified by the USGS at ground zero. Here is another quother from Distribution of heavy metals in Portland cement production process:

          Order of input trace elements (wt.%) from various raw-materials:
          from coal: Cd > Hg > Ba > V > Co > Cu > Sr > Mn > Ni > Cr
          :::from limestone: Sr > Mn > Cr > Ba> Cu > Ni > V
          :::from ash: Co > Ni > V > Cu > Cr > Ba > Mn > Sr > Hg
          :::from sand: Cr > Cu > Ba > V > Sr > Co > Ni > Mn

          Strontium is found in cement obviously in high enough concentrations to explain its’ presence in the WTC dust. And for Barium? Barium can be found in gypsum and concrete, the mean value fromThe Chemistry and Technology of Gypsum: A Symposium, Issue 861 [p 145]: is .2mg/L. If we take 1 L = 1000 mg we have .02% Barium, or 200ppm. Add to this the amount of Barium on concrete and we have a number in the vicinity of the USGS samples. And as a matter of fact, Barium is sometimes added to cement intentionally. From INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME ON CHEMICAL SAFETY:

          Barium is also
          used in cement where concrete is exposed to salt water…

          These are not some esoteric fission elements, these are natural trace elements found in building materials. If these were in fact products of fission, then they would be radioactive. So far as I can tell, nobody has been able to detect any radiation in the debris.

          1. My dislike for Travis has gone beyond profound and therefore I have invited others to address his inquiries lest I violate the constrains that Craig has (very reasonably) imposed. He cannot have watched the presentations by Chuck Bollyn, T. Mark Hightower, Charles Pegelow, Joe Olson and Don Fox and be SINCERE in asking these questions. As I have pointed out many times, some of these elements on exist in radioactive forms and, what is decisive here that he will not acknowledge, is their QUANTITY and CORRELATIONS WITH OTHER ELEMENTS. I cannot say why others have not replied, unless they hold Travis in equally profound contempt.

            1. As I have pointed out many times, some of these elements on exist in radioactive forms and, what is decisive here that he will not acknowledge, is their QUANTITY and CORRELATIONS WITH OTHER ELEMENTS.

              I have just shown that the elements strontium and barium were found in the range of concentrations that you would expect from concrete and gypsum dust.

              Jim has shown nothing. Nothing at all.

              So, how much strontium total was there? This guy estimates the total WTC dust volume from one tower to be 5,861,743 ft³, and if you take the USGS mean strontium concentration [726ppm], we have 4,200 ft³ of strontium. How does one kilogram of plutonium yield this much strontium?

              If this was radioactive strontium, they where were the β-burns?

              1. No one who had actually watched the presentations by me, Chuck Boldwyn, T. Mark Hightower, Charles Pegelow, Joe Olson and Don Fox would make such an absurd claim. Notice Travis has not denied that he has not watched them. Anyone who has knows how far from the truth he has wandered. I am doing my best not to violate the constraints that Craig has (entirely reasonably) imposed, but a man who would distort the evidence to this extent is proven to be untrustworthy.

                1. You do realize that if radioactive isotope ⁸⁹Sr was present in the USGS dust samples that were run through the inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometer that they used to quantify and qualify the dust; it would be physically indistinguishable from Yttrium?

                  Monoisotopic ⁸⁹Y and ⁸⁹Sr have the exact same m/z ratio; and m/z ratio and intensity are the only things measured by ICP-MS. This means that all of the strontium quantified by the USGS had to be the non-radioactive ⁸⁸Sr, ⁸⁷Sr, and ⁸⁶Sr isotopes. If radioactive ⁸⁹Sr was present, it would have been qualified as Yttrium.

                  Mass/charge ratio of Strontium natural isotopes:http://www.docbrown.info/page04/4_71atomMSintro.htm
                  Mass/Charge ratio of Yttrium: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.515.2366&rep=rep1&type=pdf

                  1. You DO understand that I am a philosopher of science and not an engineer or a physicist. That’s why I bring in people who have expertise in areas where I do not. That’s also why I recommend you watch the presentations I have posted.

                    I have enough experience in this area, however, to detect INSINCERITY. And you exude it from every pore. It’s clear that you are the razzle-dazzle guy when it comes to physics (or faking it). I am not the guy to answer your questions.

                    But there is overwhelming proof that this was a nuclear event. Those who deny it are not after the truth of 9/11. There is more than one of you here, but I am doing my best to adhere to the wise admonitions of Craig. This is his site.

                    1. But there is overwhelming proof that this was a nuclear event.

                      There is absolutely no proof. None at all.

                      You do realize that when the USGS was using X-ray fluorescence to qualify and quantify the samples, that any amount radioactive particles in said samples would have given off an alarming amount of background radiation, or noise. Don’t you think that the USGS would have been puzzled when the dust being measured in the X-ray fluorescent spectrometers were emitting γ-rays before and after the incident beam was even applied?

                      You DO understand that I am a philosopher of science and not an engineer or a physicist.

                      Exactly why you were exiled from A&E911 when you started promoting this ridiculous idea. Why don’t you learn some physics and chemistry before you start making such ludicrous claims.

                    2. Travis, you need to get your facts right. I was never a member of A&E911, which I regard as a limited hangout. I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth and invited Steve Jones, Ph.D., to be my co-chair. When I became convinced that nano-thermite could not cut it, I began considering other theories. It was when I interviewed Judy Wood on 11 November 2006–am interview I liked for broadening the range of theories under consideration at the time–Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and other left Scholars to create their own variation in a very underhanded, despicable fashion.

                      I have had to contend with lots of false attacks, where yours provide striking confirmation for my assessment that you are here to harass and discredit, not search for truth. What does it matter than I am not a nuclear physicist? Steve Jones IS a nuclear physicist, yet he is covering up the truth while I am promoting it. It took me until 2012 to become convinced that it had been done using mini and micro nukes, which only someone with a political agenda would ever describe as “ludicrous”. You won’t watch presentations. You resort to insinuation. You have outed yourself.

                    3. Proof of the use of nukes: (1) the buildings were blown apart in every direction from the top down; (2) they were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust (one of the signatures of a nuclear event); (3) there was nothing left in their footprints (they were destroyed to ground level–or even below); (4) Rudi brought in 115 dump trumps loaded with 100s of thousands of tons of dirt to absorb some of the effects of the radioactive contamination; (5) USGS dust studies demonstrated the presence of elements that, in the quantities and their correlations (which you have never addressed), further substantiated this was a nuclear event; (6) the medical problems incurred by first responders and residents of the area are further proof.

                      Someone with a sincere interest in the truth would acknowledge the evidence that I have cited and explained what alternative theory could account for it in its totality. You do not do that but, instead, plunge into minutia about the nature of subatomic processes. You haven’t given the least hit of the alternative you support, which suggests to me that you don’t have one. That, after all, is the stance of A&E911, which you false alleged “exiled” me! That is pretty rich stuff, if you had any real understanding of the history of the 9/11 Truth movement. You appear to be some kind of “nuclear hit man” designated to try to make me look bad, even though all the evidence is on my side. You gave it a go, but it didn’t work. You have exposed yourself to everyone here.

                    4. Jim Fetzer’s Proof of the use of nukes: (1) the buildings were blown apart in every direction from the top down; Not true. They were blown apart laterally and gravity did the rest. If there were nukes used, you would have had a strong upward force; a mushroom cloud.(2) they were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust (one of the signatures of a nuclear event); This is not a “signature” of a nuclear event. This happens during many other types of explosions. (3) there was nothing left in their footprints (they were destroyed to ground level–or even below); Not proof of a nuclear event. (4) Rudi brought in 115 dump trumps loaded with 100s of thousands of tons of dirt to absorb some of the effects of the radioactive contamination; There was no radioactive contamination to adsorb. (5) USGS dust studies demonstrated the presence of elements that, in the quantities and their correlations (which you have never addressed), further substantiated this was a nuclear event; No. The fact that these were non-radioactive natural isotopes only further discredits your nuke theory. I have shown that these elements are naturally found in gypsum and concrete in the USGS measured amounts. (6) the medical problems incurred by first responders and residents of the area are further proof. What Medical problems? There would have been much more medical problems had a nuclear device been used. β-burns, α-burns, lung cancer, thyroid cancer, and acute radiation poisoning.

                      Your so-called proof is not proof at all. I never has been and never will be.

                    5. Nice how Travis openly admits that his dedication to 9/11 Truth is go great that he will not watch any of the presentations. So he has no idea whether Chuck Boldwyn, T. Mark Hightower, Charles Pegelow, Joe Olson, Don Fox or I dispatch any of his questions. If anyone harbored any doubts about whether or not he is SINCERE, the fact of the matter is resolved in my favor.

                      One or another of us had dealt with virtually all of these issues. It is a form of harassment for him to be permitted this endless repetition WHEN HE WON’T WATCH THE PRESENTATIONS. My view is that he is blowing a lot of smoke here and that his reckless disregard for truth outs him even further. Do us a favor and tell us who you are and what theory about HOW you advocate.

                      (1) That the buildings were blown apart in every direction from the top down means that this was no kind of collapse. And if it were done using conventional explosives, there would have been a massive pile of debris in their footprints equal to 12% of the height of the originals, which at 110 floors would have been around 13.5 floors. (At WTC-7, a 47 story building, it was 5.5 floors.)

                      (2) The conversion of materials into very fine dust is a signature of the use of nukes. Denying it does not enhance your credibility, which has already been badly tattered and torn. Consult all the texts in the world for confirmation. I feel as though I am being asked to give a child all the eduction he never received. A denial is not an argument. You simply assert a false proposition.

                      (3) There was nothing left in their footprint is decisive proof that no collapse using conventional explosives occurred and strongly implies that some sophisticated technique was use, which I explain the introduction you refuse to watch. They had to make sure no substantial portion of those 500,000-ton buildings hit the bathtub and let Hudson River Water flood lower Manhattan.

                      (4) Childishly begging the question by an unsupported assertion (“There was no radioactive contamination to absorb”) leaves the obvious question unanswered: Why in the world would they have brought in 100s of thousands of tons of dirt IF THEY DID NOT HAVE TO? Judy Wood was the first to document this occurrence, which is rather striking and which Travis cannot explain.

                      (5) He again simply begs the question. Several of the participants explained that the elements found in the USGS dust studies would not have been present had this not been a nuclear event. That Travis asserts the opposite does not make it true. And, indeed, I assert that he’s claim is false. You can watch the presentations for substantiation, after which I will cite more sources.

                      (6) And these were mini or micro nukes, whose use has also been confirmed by the debilitating medical maladies incurred by first responders and residents of the area, which include Multiple Myeloma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid, pancreatic, brain, esophageal, prostate and blood and plasma cancers at rates far above normal, which Jeff Prager was among the first to point out and where recent estimates have placed the number affected at close to 70,000.

                      (7) And of course the duration of the process of destruction has to be taken into account. Taking out a floor every 1/10th of a second is astounding. These were 110 story buildings, The North Tower was destroyed in 11 second (1 second per 10 floors); the South in 9 (because the top 30 floors were tilted to the side and blown as one). I have yet to hear of any alternative theory that could account for the destruction of those 30 floors than by the use of nukes. What’s yours?

                      Travis resorts to the “divide and conquer” technique. By separating different elements of proof, he attempts to deny them individually, without consideration for their implications and meaning. His responses to (1), (2) and (3) are especially telling. And I would be astonished if he had an alternative theory that could account for the thorough and complete destruction of the towers and also account for the medical problems incurred by first responders and local residents.

                    6. And if it were done using conventional explosives, there would have been a massive pile of debris in their footprints equal to 12% of the height of the originals, which at 110 floors would have been around 13.5 floors.

                      Jim Fetzer continues to try to extrapolate the rubble height of the Seattle Kingdome’s demolition to the WTC’s demolition after it has been pointed out to him on multiple occasions why this is stupid.
                      •In essence, the building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high.¹
                      •Much of the building was turned to dust
                      •Much of the building was ejected 600ft laterally [see 200 Vesey St]
                      •The building was much taller than the Kingdome, giving any lateral debris much more time to disperse before hitting the ground.
                      So Fetzer dishonestly continues to use this 12% figure because he thinks that it proves something. I get the feeling that dementia is setting in for Uncle Fetzer.

                      ¹http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

                  2. The USGS personnel were chemists not nuclear physicists so we do not have isotopic data available from their dust samples. What we do know for sure is that no commercial office building could be constructed that contained this much barium and strontium. Yttrium is also found in the dust samples. There had to be another source for the barium and strontium found in the dust. When you consider that the Twin Towers were largely vaporized in 20 seconds nuclear fission fits the evidence to a T.

                    The smoking gun of a thermonuclear explosion is tritium (a rare but naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen). Even Steve Jones admits that. The tritium from a nuclear explosion is almost completely converted into tritiated water (HTO). The Department of Energy found tritium in the basement of Building 6 at 55 times background levels 11 days after 9/11. This was after firefighters sprayed a million liters of water on WTC 6 and it had rained twice. So no doubt the tritium in the basement of WTC 6 was diluted. Per Ed Ward’s breakdown there was approx 6 billion tritium units present in the basement of WTC 6 on 9/11. http://wp.me/p1jGyi-m3 Ed’s full breakdown is in the PowerPoint

                    The basement of Building 6 was so hot that cement was melting. Guns are on display at the NYC Police Museum that are encased in cement. What source of energy can melt cement? A thermonuclear explosion would do it. There was melted cement at Chernobyl as well.

                    2/3 of WTC 1,2 and 7 were completely vaporized in less than 30 seconds. There was a giant crater in the middle of building 6. A huge pothole was found were building 4 used to be. The rubble pile was between 600 and 2,000 °F for 6 months after 9/11. 1,400 cars were toasted.

                    If you are going to deny nukes on 9/11 then you have to be able to explain the barium, strontium, yttrium, cesium and zinc in the USGS dust samples, the tritium in the DOE water samples, how 3 massive skyscrapers were vaporized in less than 30 seconds, why the rubble pile was hot for 6 months after 9/11, melted cement, a giant pothole, debris ejected 600 feet and toasted cars etc. What other source of energy can explain all of this? There is none. 9/11 was a nuclear event. Period.

          2. Those who are out to discredit views often do not bother to do serious research on them lest they find that the positions they are attacking are well-founded. I have been at this business a long time and have a sense about those who lack SINCERITY. Travis is clearly among them. I am certain he has not watched any of the presentations I have posted already and will not be viewing this one, either, the introduction to the conference, where I laid out the basic proofs:
            ,

      2. Adam displays an astounding capacity to ignore the available evidence, which establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower; (2) that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon; (3) that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville; and (4) that Flight 174 did not hit the South Tower. Here is a summary of that evidence in conversation with Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine (USA, ret.), formerly in charge of all US military photographic intelligence. So here is your chance to show we don’t have it right. Identify the claim and explain what we have wrong and how you know. You have made so many points about this that it should be a piece of cake:

        Search Results
        The Real Deal Ep # 100 The 9/11 Crash Sites with Maj. Gen. Albert …
        Video for The Real Deal Ep #100▶ 1:59:49

        Sep 4, 2015 – Uploaded by Media Broadcasting Center Official Channel
        The Real Deal Youtube Playlist https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list

    2. “What causes steel to turn into rust powder but doesn’t burn the paper in the buildings?”
      “When do you stop molesting your daughter.”

      These two sentences have the same logical flaw, though chances that you have molested your daughter, if you have one, are higher, than that steel has turned to dust. The first one is possible. The other is not!

  15. I gave considerable leeway on this thread in allowing discussion of different theories of how the towers were brought down – even though I don’t find this to be a productive topic for the Truth Movement. But I do not wish this to morph into a no planes discussion. Several of you have weighed in on this already, and that’s fine, but I wish discussion of this topic on this thread to cease here.

    And I would like to thank you all for your efforts to avoid using personal insults, which will continue not to be tolerated.

    Thank you.

    1. There are only three questions about 9/11: who did it, how it was done and why. Since A&E911 and Judy Wood will not talk about WHO or WHY, that leaves HOW. Discussion about the WTC is all very well, but that attack–like the Pentagon and Shanksville–were supposed to have been done with PLANES. The proof that the crash sites were FABRICATED OR FAKED (each in its own way) leads me to ask, WHAT IS THERE THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO DISCUSS? The very idea of this forum, I thought, was to go “outside the box”. It now looks like “a bigger box”!

      1. A review of all the discussions on Truth and Shadows over the past six years will reveal hundreds of thousands of words of exchanges on no planes and other topics that are often considered off limits by one forum or another. That does not mean, however, that every topic is appropriate for every blog post discussion. Because of the subject of the article above, I permitted the discussion of nukes to take place. It’s not exactly the topic of the article but the method of destruction of the buildings is relevant. The possible faking of the crash scenes can certainly be tied to just about any WTC discussion topic, but it is not directly the same thing.

  16. As most of you know, a pro-truth article featuring AE was published at Europhysics News. Good step forward. Now, “skeptical science” has done this puff piece attempting to neutralize it.

    From the article:

    First a Few actual Facts
    There are two rather important points to start with …

    1. Europhysics News is not a peer-reviewed science journal, it is just a magazine
    2. The article does not contain output from a formal study, it is just a magazine article

    Later from the exact same piece:

    “…and the technology magazine Popular Mechanics have investigated and rejected the claims”

    As one commenter at the link said: “Now THERE’S a peer-reviewed science journal. LOL!”

    http://www.skeptical-science.com/critical-thinking/scientific-proof-911-inside-job/

    1. First a Few actual Facts
      There are two rather important points to start with …

      1. Popular Mechanics is not a peer-reviewed science journal, it is just a magazine
      2. The article does not contain output from a formal study, it is just a magazine article

  17. And of course the duration of the process of destruction has to be taken into account. Taking out a floor every 1/10th of a second is astounding. These were 110 story buildings, The North Tower was destroyed in 11 second (1 second per 10 floors); the South in 9 (because the top 30 floors were tilted to the side and blown as one). I have yet to hear of any theory that could account for the destruction of those 30 floors other than by the use of nukes. But of course those like Travis are not addressing the evidence but making up (what I take to be) imaginary problems. Were he to actually watch the presentations, he could learn whether we missed anything he thinks to be important. But his dedication to 9/11 Truth is so great that he won’t even bother to watch them.

    1. Why would I bother to watch them? I have already proven how ridiculous the nuke theory is on many different levels. The smallest nuclear device has 4X the explosive power than the bomb that was used in Oklahoma City. A explosion of that magnitude would be visible in the 9/11 demolition films and would have irradiated thousands of bystanders. Even the dust from nuclear explosions are capable of causing severe burns.

      1. Begging the question again. This is another issue that was discussed in the presentations that you refuse to watch (as though it were a badge of honor). You seem to think there have been no refinements in nuclear weapons technology since Oklahoma City. What year was that, Travis? Are you really so naive as to make such a claim? I am sorry, but for the most part, if find it very embarrassing to have to deal with someone whose insincere motives are so very transparent and whose pretensions to knowledge he cannot possibly possess are so extensive and brazen.

        1. There is a theoretically limit on the size of a nuclear device. Do I have to explain what critical mass means to you Fetzer?

          You simply cannot take a pea-sized amount of Plutonium and have it undergo fission. You need a certain amount of radioactive material before you can do that. As it turns out, the critical mass of plutonium creates an explosion equal in magnitude to ~10 kilotons of TNT. From Wikipedia:

          By comparison, the smallest yield version of the W54 (10 tons) is two to four times as powerful as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing…

          You see Fetzer, I am not just pulling numbers out of my ass. All of you mini-nuke theorists are scientifically inept, since a mini-nuke is an oxymoron. The smallest nuke possible would have done much more damage than we saw on 9/11. Why don’t you get a hold of some 9/11 dust and drive 10 miles to the UW Chemistry building on Johnson St? Get them to run it through their ICP-MS and you can prove the existence of a nuclear bomb since all of your radioactive Strontium, Barium, and Cesium would have decayed to lighter elements in the intervening years between now and 2001. In this way you could easily prove that radioactive elements were present in the USGS dust. But then, you would also have to explain why the USGS didn’t detect any radioactive isotopes in 2001, and since you seem incapable of making any convincing argument for nuclear devices, I doubt that you could do that.

          ¹³⁹Barium has a half-life of 83 minutes
          ¹⁴⁰Barium has a half-life of 12 days

          1. Everyone can see that you are eager to discount the only theory that can accommodate the data we have about the demolition of the Twin Towers. What is your alternative? Space beams? Fairy dust? Are you with Judy Wood? Or, like A&E911, you have no theory but you disagree with anyone who has one? Come out of the closet and declare yourself. We would all like to know the position of someone who poses as such an expert on these things. What is your theory?

          2. Pentagon eyes age of ‘mini-nukes’ Small weapons for small conflicts
            June 16, 1993|By Knight-Ridder Newspapers

            WASHINGTON — Some Pentagon planners hope the end of the Cold War will signal the start of a new era — the age of “mini-nukes,” small nuclear weapons that might be used in future Third World conflicts.

            Among the gleams in the nuclear planners’ eyes is a “micro-nuke” with the explosive power of just 10 tons of TNT, an item that might be suitable for jobs like blasting Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein out of his Baghdad bunker.

            A request to fund research into the new generation of small atomic weapons is included in President Clinton’s 1994 budget proposal for the Department of Energy.
            Not surprisingly, the idea has sparked a blast from nuclear foes.

            “Nuclear zealots couldn’t care less that the Cold War is over,” Bill Arkin, a nuclear researcher with the environmental group Greenpeace, complained yesterday. “What is shocking, though, is that the Clinton administration tolerates, and even supports, these new programs.”
            Mr. Arkin described the fledgling program in a report in the July-August issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. White House and Pentagon officials acknowledged yesterday that such work is under way, but they would not comment further.

            In April, Gen. Lee Butler, commander of the Pentagon’s nuclear forces, told Congress that he “is working with selected regional commands to explore the transfer of planning responsibilities for employment of nuclear weapons in theater conflicts.”

            And two of the nation’s pre-eminent nuclear research labs — the Lawrence Livermore Lab in California and the Los Alamos Lab in New Mexico — want to press ahead with development of what the Clinton budget proposal calls a “precision, low-yield warhead.”

            The proposed 10-ton “micro-nuke,” would pack a punch 10 times the size of the largest non-nuclear bombs dropped by U.S. forces during the Persian Gulf War. It would be 1/500th the size of the B-61, currently the smallest nuclear warhead in the Pentagon inventory.

  18. Travis. All due respect. If you or anyone else want to fit these pieces together, have a dedicated listen to mr.Fetzers conversations with these intensely interesting men. without distraction and carry a pen and paper. You get to see the spectre haunting ground zero for 15 years.
    A Limited nuclear strike in NYC. Nuclear Boom Boom. That’s what it looks like.
    Maybe then ask me how I got to be where I’m at.

    1. Fremo, I almost certain that the nuke-theory is disinformation. None of the arguments that Fetzer presents have much substance. Here is another persons’ take on the Barium and Strontium issue:

      Dear Jeff
      I have briefly examined the paper presenting an argument on the basis of “trace element” concentrations in dust and on girder residues from the WTC that the buildings that they were destroyed by nuclear fission. The arguments are incorrect for a number of reasons. However, the evidence is interesting and I will briefly discuss the issues.
      •Barium and Strontium are not trace elements, they are common constituents of any material that contains Calcium (concrete) as they are in the same chemical group and occur together. I agree however that they are present in very much higher amounts than they should.
      •Both elements are toxic but not highly toxic
      •A correlation between Ba and Ca would be expected in any sample since they occur together and with Ca because they are in Group II of the periodic table and share chemistry.
      But it is highly unusual to find such high levels of Barium
      • I also found high levels Barium and Strontium in war debris in Gaza, Fallujah Iraq and the Lebanon.
      •You do not get high levels of Bariums and Strontium from nuclear fission. They are both fission products in the form Ba-140 and Sr-89 and Sr-90 but the quantities in grams are ridiculously low. You must not confuse activity (becquerels) with mass (grams). The whole of the Sr-90 releases from Fukushima or from Chernobyl amount to a few grams. A fission yield of a 2 Megaton Test (which would have destroyed New York entirely) would make only which 1014Bq of Sr-90 and represents 18grams. For Barium it is less than a gram. So this argument about too much Sr and Ba does not work. The argument is even more absurd when applied to Thorium (see below).
      •C-14 is not formed by fission but by neutron activation.
      •Although Thorium-234 is formed by fission or Uranium, the quantities are even smaller than Ba and Sr because the half-life of Th-234 is less than a month. So the amount of Th-234 made from 1 gram of U-239 is less than 1 x 10-11g.

      This is from Veterans Today and can be found here. You see how the Barium and Strontium argument is a non-argument, but one that Fetzer continues to use. This is because he has no real argument. He also commonly uses the 12% rubble-pile argument; and this is just ridiculous. The point is, if there were any good arguments for the nuke theory, I would have heard them from Fetzer by now.

      1. Watch the presentations. Barium and Strontium are only two of the elements the USGS studies found in the 9/11 dust they sampled. They should not have been present in the quantities found, where the levels for Barium never fall below 400ppm and do not below 700ppm for Strontium. In the samples from Broadway and John Streets, they reach over 3000ppm for both. You remark about 12% confirms that you are untrustworthy even about common knowledge. Experience with controlled demolitions–not theoretical, but from experience–has shown that, when a structure is brought down by a classic controlled demolition, it leaves a debris pile around 12% of the height of the original. This is one more reason that no one should take you seriously about any of this.

        1. Why the Barium and Strontium argument is not an argument:
          •I have shown that the average Strontium concentration in Portland cement is actually higher than in the USGS dust samles.
          •I have shown that the Barium content of a sample of gypsum was half of the USGS samples; that barium is found naturally in Portland cement; and that barium is sometimes intentionally used as an additive in Portland cement.
          •I have shown that the few grams of radioactive Strontium and Barium produced from Uranium fission would have a negligible impact on the ~4,000 cubic feet of strontium in the dust.

          This is not an argument, but Fetzer will not stop using it. He will continue to cite the USGS data as if it proves that nuclear devices were used. If the USGS dust was actually radioactive, we would have had:
          •β-burns from the β-decay: high-energy electrons being emitted from the dust. This is clinically manifested by severe epidermal burns.
          •Isotopic data from the ICP-MS that was used by the USGS to qualify and quantify the samples. The ICP-MS is capable of resolving isotopes.
          •Data from the β-decay when the USGS used X-ray fluorescent spectrometry to qualify and quantify the dust.

          The USGS would have known that the dust was radioactive. Steven Jones measured the dust with a Geiger counter and found nothing above background radiation.

          I am surprised that Craig allows you to continue making that claim. Anybody look at this post and check the data for themselves. Strontium levels of 700ppm from concrete dust proves absolutely nothing.

          1. Travis, two things:

            1. (And this first one is for everyone) Please refrain from commenting on how happy/angry/surprised you are at what I allow or don’t allow, etc.

            2. Please don’t bold all your text.

    1. Look Poolman, you should look at the critical masses of radioactive isotopes here. This table shows that you need at least 10kg of plutonium-239 and 15 kg of uranium-233 to create a nuclear bomb. If you have less than the critical mass, then it simply will not work. You need enough material to emit enough α, β, and γ particles to start a chain reaction.
      Just about the smallest theoretically possible nuclear bomb was the W-54 warhead, the smallest version of which yields a 6 ton TNT equivalent. This is quite a large explosion that would have caused blinding light, severe damage, primary and secondary radiation burns, and an electromagnetic pulse.

      It is impossible to design a nuclear weapon significantly smaller than the W-54 warhead. This is the primary reason why this theory is not worth considering.

      This nuke-theory is disinformation.

      1. Travis, I have done my homework. I can only trust what my own eyes can see. Personally, I think you are way behind the learning curve of where this type of weaponry is at. But that is only my opinion. Please note my vision is fine so there is no need for the bold type. I don’t need anyone to tell me in any tone how to think and I instinctively do not trust people that try.

        Instead of accusing others of being disinfo agents, maybe try and enlighten us.

        Can you explain the pyroclastic visuals and mass reduction of all solid materials that were the twin towers?

        1. Can you explain the lack of radioactive evidence?
          Are you postulating a theoretically impossible nuclear device?
          Can a mass of <15kg Uranium create a nuclear bomb?

  19. The creatioNIST Pinocchio SUNDER found no evidence of explosives at WTC because he didn’t go looking for them. His hack GROSS, found no evidence of extreme temperatures atWTC while lazily fingering the razor sharpened edges of vaporised steel girders from WTC.
    You (Travis) find no evidence of mini nuke discharge at WTC while happily admitting to not listening to the very podcasts explaining the sophistication and forensics of evidence for them.

    I quit.

    1. I would think that one of you three could easily summarize the best case for the use of nukes. If you cannot do that, then you don’t understand the purported forensic evidence yourselves.

    2. Actually, I lie. I don’t quit. Tragic.. , but Travis is quite wrong to call this disinformation.
      This is INformaion. The nuclear blast demolition process and evidence of it, is the direction forward…is the sum total of the past 15 years independent investigation and is the accomplishment of research.
      The evidence is trying to break through. Very important.

  20. Alright. Travis.
    This is lay-man stuff, right? Basic. Just me.
    Details are in the podcasts you won’t listen to.

    APART from the overall final blast patterns, the 10 fold energy disparity conservatively equated by Jim Hoffman, the health issues and exotics found in the dust studies; for me the hole in the conventional explosive/incendiary mix has always been the concrete.

    How to conventionally EXPAND 220 acres of concrete flooring in the two great towers into uniform ppm raging hot DUST in 9 seconds for Sth., and 11 seconds, North(NIST figures)
    Key for me in these disinfowars, is language. And it’s always bothered me OCT reference to concrete, glass and all parts within 220one acre office floors, being “pulverised”.
    Pulverisation automatically suggests a mechanical grinding. Hence, ‘gravitational.’
    It is disingenuous, because the gigantic hot pyrotechnic dust was EXPANDING during the demolition process Ie: in mid air. One acre in 1/11th of a second, Too fast. Observably opposite to Physical ‘grinding’ .
    This is not even discussing the energies required to vaporise and violently eject the thousands of tonne of steel structure in perfect symmetry, radially from centre tower in those same moments.
    This is simply a matter of DUST. Howdoes 11acres of concrete flooring get expanded into raging hot ppm dust clouds in mid air -per second? An acre every 1/11th of a second? A uniform DUST, thousands of tonne of which, was molten iron ‘spit’?

    The nanothermitic material does not have detonation velocity enough to do that. So what conventional materiel, and how placed, to achieve what we observed? One acre of concrete flooring per 1/11th second into fine hot DUST in perfect conformity of flow, in concentration ALL concrete into DUST. Rapidly expanding.
    Charges in cores would blast chunks of concrete, not turn them into a conformity of ppm DUST.
    So, Pulverisation is a misnomer. Just as “collapse” is. They are both words that direct the thinking away from the question of e-X-p-a-n-s-i-o-n…To confuse the observable reality. The concrete was not being pulverised, it was being expanded HOT, in 9 and 11 second energy flows.
    gigantic thermally expanding energy release….
    All together,
    11 floors pier second.

    A neutron pulse from a 4th generation nuclear device, or series of designed devices instantly EXPANDING water molecules naturally embedded in the materials by X 1600 ( the podcasts mr.Pegelow, Hightower and Fox)

    practically and forensically explains the observable and otherwise unexplained material building behaviour.

  21. So how do you do it without making much noise. Obviously not too many high explosives were used, since the WTC demolition didn’t sound like your standard controlled demolition. Listen to the demolition of the Everglades Hotel for instance.
    Nuclear bombs are also very loud. They are usually videotaped miles away due to the radiation that they emit. But here, you can hear the sound wave in this video at [0:50]. The bomb goes off at [0:15], so it takes 35 seconds for the sound wave to reach the microphone.

    340m/s x 35s = 11900m = 7.4 miles

    So we hear a deafening sound from 7.4 miles away. High explosives and nuclear bombs have a high degree of brisance that we do not hear at the WTC. This could be explained by using subsonic nanothermite.

    2 Al(s) + Fe₂O₃(s) → 2 Fe(s) + Al₂O₃(s) ΔH⁰ = -851.5 kJ

    The thermite reaction is highly exothermic. This reaction could heat the air enough to boil the water in the concrete and eject the perimeter beams. The resultant thermitic dust, as analyzed by Harrit et al, could settle onto vehicles and continue to react.

    This is a much more plausible scenario in my opinion.

  22. No. My understanding has Exothermic too slow…is external…applied..mechanical,.its 11 acres PER SECOND into uniform hot. expanding ppm DUST remember..NThermite detonation velocity explained as too slow @895 m/sec according to the discussion….this is internal expansion …molecular expansion of liquid into vapour, instantly…remember people are 78+-% water so that’s how come a thousand plus of them got evenly spread over lower Manhattan in very little bits..a 4th generation weapon ……neutron pulses….entire acre floor areas 1/11th second liquid to vapour boom boom…..listen to the podcasts fcrissake…they discuss audio questions…what’s your problem to listening ? You wouldn’t have to make up this stuff if you plugged in and listened. Those questions are actually answered by these presentations.

    1. This is another key point: it takes nanothermite longer to cut through one steel beam than it took for both of the North and South Towers to be demolished

      1. Oh really? No according to US Patent #7,555,986:

        Boosting the thermite reactant with a gas-producing solid will create a high-speed flow of hot particles and gases through a nozzle 205 (typically a linear nozzle). This high-temperature/high-velocity flow will allow metal structures to be defeated in a matter of milliseconds.

        In a matter of milliseconds…

        The apparatus and method typically provide for a reaction that provides cutting action in a non-explosive manner. “Non-explosive manner” is defined as a reaction that proceeds below the speed of sound in the reacting material. By proceeding below the speed of sound in the reacting material a shock wave as experienced in explosives is avoided.

        Wow. Looks like this is one way to avoid deafening noises. I wonder how loud dozens of nuclear bombs would be?

        1. By his recent posts, Travis has revealed he does not know what he is talking about because he does not know that we are talking about a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes that appears to have number several dozen at least. He wastes everyones time because he is not willing to watch the presentations, where I in my introduction and Chuck Boldwyn in his analysis make it clear that we are talking about large number of mini or micro nukes.Then he comes back with assertions he could not possibly know to be true of the present state of nuclear technology, which is addressed by others, such as Charles Pegelow and Joe Olson, whose presentations he likewise refuses to watch. There are many terms to describe such a guy, including “disgusting”,

          1. COMMENT REMOVED.

            *Travis, you saw the rules I asked everyone to follow, and you ignored them. You are suspended from posting here until further notice. Gratuitous personal insults not only disrespect the person being insulted but they disrespect me and this site. I put all comments on moderation for a while because I was concerned about something like this happening while I was asleep, away from my computer, or whatever. I’m not sure how this got through, but it did. -Craig McKee

            1. Not only is this post a blatant violation of the standards Craig McKee has imposed–where I even called him out about it, yet he leaves it here in place–but it presents demonstrable falsehoods as though they were truths! The arguments T. Mark Hightower and I have presented about the myth of explosive nano-thermite are physical. The arguments I have presented about the USGS dust studies are chemical. He knows it. Craig knows it. So WTF is going on here? This is far beyond the boundaries of any reasonable discussion. Craig appears to be complicit with Travis here. I can envision no other explanation that makes any sense. THIS IS TOTALLY DISGUSTING.

              1. “Craig appears to be complicit with Travis here.”

                Jim, you are seriously pushing your luck with this accusation. I have been extremely lenient with the tone and language of many of your comments over the years, and I’ve received plenty of criticism for that. Sometimes people are going to make rude comments to you that break the rules. I will deal with this when it happens. Stomping your foot and insulting me does not get the situation resolved any faster. I did not see the comment in question until you pointed it out. I have suspended Travis’s posting privileges as a result.

                Look folks, I made a choice to allow those who have made previous comments to post without advance moderation. This has its advantages and its drawbacks. Sometimes people act like assholes by posting insulting attacks. And those are available to be read in real time with no input from me – except after the fact. The alternative is that I moderate everything so you just sit there and wait for me to get around to reading your comment. I used to do that and got complaints about doing it that way. Now I trust that people will act like adults. When they don’t I deal with it.

              2. And one more thing…

                While it would ideal if I were able and willing to sit at my computer 24/7 just ready to call someone on a disingenuous or inconsistent argument, I don’t have the time or – in the case of this particular discussion – the interest to do so. I will be very clear where I stand on this discussion: I don’t think it is worth fighting over the type of explosive used to bring the towers down. We all know (except Roger) that they were blown up. And not by al-Qaeda. There is nothing wrong with sincere people discussing the details, but it isn’t worth this kind of acrimony. What has been achieved with this discussion? Have we all learned something new? Or have we all just become a little more discouraged?

                1. Craig, now that I know you missed the post I had called you about, I believe you have handled it properly. Thanks for that. But there are only three questions about 9/11: the WHO, the HOW and the WHY. A&E911 and Judy Wood refused to address the WHO and the WHY. That only leaves the HOW, where neither of them has an adequate explanation even for HOW IT WAS DONE. We have to thrash it out because it matters to understanding the truth of 9/11. I believe we are making progress here, but there really are no other questions about 9/11 worth discussing than those three. Which means, “Yes, in spite of it all, this REALLY IS worth discussing”. Thanks.

                2. Craig McKee:

                  How does anyone know it was blown up? It unraveled into dust at 1/10th of a second per floor. Regardless the explosives required to do that, that’s impossible especially when you consider the big steel. So it had to be something else.

                  No big steel landed on the roofs of the buildings across the street. So it wasn’t blown out.

                  The concussion that killed Bobby Mc. had to be something related to the Towers coming apart.

                    1. James Henry Fetzer and Craig McKee:

                      I didn’t know about the one into the Winter gardens, This would have been the same facade steel from one side going across the street and hit the lower [portions of that building. I could put all those pictures up to show you but Craig doesn’t want that many pictures up at the same time in long posts.

                      Here is an overview of all the roofs in the area and the close up of all these buildings has aluminum siding on them. Not one big steel went on top of any of them, except breaking the glass on one part of the Winter Gardens. Most of the glass appears to still be in place.

                      It is true there is steel on the lower portions of some buildings like one piece in the Bankers trust but not on the roof.

                      I myself assumed we saw steel blowing out from the Towers when it was unraveling, but as it turns out it was aluminum siding. I searched every picture I could and there isn’t any big steel on those roofs. They are not punctured.

                    2. Roger. Joel Meyerowitz, in his large format photo essay on 911 called ‘AFTERMATH,’ photographed a multi tonne section of nth Tower antenna, on LIBERTY st. Liberty street, is on the other side of the South Tower from tower one.
                      Maths is not my strong point, but I imagine an equation exists to quantify the energy required to blast that mass, that far.

                  1. “No big steel landed on the roofs of the buildings across the street. So it wasn’t blown out.”

                    This is just false. There were steel girders embedded in other buildings. Video shows columns being propelled up and out – hundreds of feet.

                    “The concussion that killed Bobby Mc. had to be something related to the Towers coming apart.”

                    The explosion that killed McIlvaine came well before the building “came apart.” His body was one of the few that was removed to the morgue before the building came down.

                    1. Craig McKee:

                      I realize the explosion that killed Bobby Mc. was before the Towers were destroyed but what caused that explosion? It seems something else was at play here and it didn’t happened instantaneously. It was working on the building when that explosion occurred.

                    2. Roger (and Craig),

                      The explosion in question appears to have been one of the two set off in the subbasements of each tower to weaken their foundations and drain the sprinkler systems of water. Willie Rodrigues came to Madison and, while we were having dinner after his talk, he described to be watching the water fill the subbasements. These explosions ranked .7 and .9 on the Richter scale. When the buildings were demolished, those events came in a 2.1 and 2.3.

                      I have discussed this many places, but those who are opposed to cutting edge research won’t let me post without attacking me and disrupting the exchange on this and other web sites. Check out the following at the end:

                      “The MidWest 9/11 Truth Conference, Part 2” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAEvw2CjAYQ

                      Track down “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job”, where Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong lay out their research about these explosions, which occurred 14 and 17 seconds BEFORE the alleged impacts of the planes. This is fascinating stuff and provides the key to understanding how the son of Robert McIlvaine died LONG BEFORE the Twin Towers were brought down.

                      Jim

                    3. Jim, you may notice that your comment of 7:35 p.m. yesterday has not appeared. This is because of the last line, which was less overtly mean than the one that got Travis suspended, but which was also a personal attack. I would have thought you’d go out of your way to avoid this kind of comment after having expressed outrage about being the recipient of an attack such a short time before.

                    4. Lars, those citing Neil Harrit’s calculations are displaying the absurdity of the contention that the Twin Towers were blown apart by nano-thermite. You surely know that the highest DV attributed to nano-thermite is only 895m/s, while the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200m/s and in steel 6,100m/s. So it cannot have blown apart the buildings. PERIOD. The further absurdity is that it has an explosive force equal to 1/13 TNT, the universal standard.Why would anyone undertaking the most massive building demolition project EVEN CONSIDER such a feeble source of energy to accomplish the task? The answer: THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED IT. Far more efficient to use mini and micro nuke, which could actually do the job in short order (9 seconds for the South Tower, 11 for the North)

                    5. You surely know that the highest DV attributed to nano-thermite is only 895m/s, while the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200m/s and in steel 6,100m/s. So it cannot have blown apart the buildings. PERIOD.

                      Thermite couldn’t have fragmented the beams, but it could have easily melted them.

                      The further absurdity is that it has an explosive force equal to 1/13 TNT, the universal standard.

                      Citation needed. The Energy density is higher in thermite than in TNT, and the specific energy in only slightly lower. Here are the numbers:
                      TNT = [4.61(MJ/kg)] and [6.92(MJ/L)]
                      Thermite = [4.00(MJ/kg)] and [18.4(MJ/L)]
                      TNT has slightly more energy per unit mass, but thermite has 2.66 times more energy per unit volume.

                      .Why would anyone undertaking the most massive building demolition project EVEN CONSIDER such a feeble source of energy to accomplish the task?

                      Because it is quiet and melts steel.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density_Extended_Reference_Table

                    6. Don and Mark may want to say more, but the buildings were not melting–they were being blown apart! So your defense of nano-thermite, whatever its other merits, does not explain the data.

                    7. The nanothermite analyzed by Harrit et al had carbon and silicon in the matrix. These elements, as well as the water vapor in the concrete, would explain the rapid release of gas, steam, and hot air.

                      A confined nanothermite reaction would create a subsonic explosion, especially in the presence of water.

                      It is the nuke theory that doesn’t fit the data. How much evidence do you have that nukes were used?

                    8. remo.:

                      There isn’t a reply box under your post so I went down one and used Craig’s to reply.

                      Thanks for the lead on Joel Meyerowitz. It’s $39.95 in the US but up here in Canada it’s $60.00.

                      About the mast, was it a nuke or copper coated explosives or thermite that had it fall in Liberty Street. Is it possible that it bounced there, after all the other Tower is missing so it is easy to see that a portion of the mast fell over there. The Hotel had a big section crushed but the rest of the building is still standing.

                      That mast was similar to the big steel in the core and none of it went on top of any of the buildings. In fact, the pictures show a lot of sidewalks across the street revealing very little ended up in the street considering the immense size of those Towers.

  23. Cremation is usually carried out at around 1,600–1,800 °F¹, and thermite burns at around 4,000°F².

    The buildings were obviously brought down by a series of explosions/deflagrations. If nuclear bombs were used exclusively, you are left with the uncomfortable and untenable conclusion that there were dozens of them.

    Dozens of small nuclear bombs would have released so much radiation that thousands of people would have suffered burns and acute radiation sickness. The sound of dozens of nuclear bombs would have been deafening.

    Deflagrating subsonic thermite best explains the high temperatures and the lack of sound.

    ¹https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremation
    ²http://www.unitednuclear.com/thermiteinfo.pdf

    1. OF COURSE THERE WERE DOZENS OF THEM! This post is a perfect illustration of why it is completely pointless to argue with a man who will not look at the evidence. I explained this in the INTRODUCTION to the Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference II. And it is discussed in many of the other video presentations that he refuses to watch. What a complete disgrace and waste of time!

    2. Nanothermite was not used to demolish the WTC buildings. The aluminum chips found in the dust were from the façade of the Towers that was blown into tiny chunks. This is what nuclear bombs do: blast material into very small pieces. That’s what it means to “get nuked.”

      The “nanothermite” found in the dust was a byproduct of the nuclear demolition of the Towers. It was not a causal mechanism.

      Nanothermite has no ability to explode steel or concrete or blast a giant pothole under Building 4. It cannot explain the persistent high temperatures for 6 months after 9/11 either. Nanothermite burns quickly then it’s done. What really happened was underground nukes exploded and deposited heat in the soil as we explained in this post: http://wp.me/p1jGyi-8d

      Questions that must be answered to defend the nanothermite hypothesis:

      Has nanothermite ever been used to demolish a building?

      Where were the thousands of tons of nanothermite produced? There is no known lab or production facility.

      How were the thousands of tons of nanothermite transported to the WTC buildings?

      If it was by truck Lower Manhattan would have been jammed with semis
      .
      Who unloaded all of this nanothermite and placed in the buildings undetected?

      What other explosive was used since nanothermite is not an explosive.

      What vaporized 2/3 of the Towers and Building 7?

      1. The aluminum chips found in the dust were from the façade of the Towers that was blown into tiny chunks.

        Wrong. If you read the Harrit paper, you will plainly realize that the aluminum was in a reduced, elemental form. Any aluminum that came from the facade would have been oxidized. Do you know what oxidation is?

        Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material.

        Look at the X-ray energy dispersive spectrographs in the Harrit paper [fig 15]. You can plainly see that this aluminum existed of reduced nanoparticles dispersed throughout a silicon oxide polymer matrix. If it were somehow possible for a nuclear explosion to create this type of material, the aluminum would exist as Al₂O₃.

        1. And if this material was a product of a nuclear explosion, then you would have XEDS maps created from the latent radioactivity alone, without the need to apply an incident beam. This would be akin to an autoradiograph.
          If this material were the product of a nuclear explosion [entropically impossible of course], Jones and Harrit would have easily been able to discern this.

        2. Nanothermite does not exist. Steve Jones made the whole thing up to cover for his buddies in the nuke labs. Yes, Steve Jones is a shill.

          Mini-nukes exist. The Pentagon admits it. We know where nuclear bombs are produced.

          Where is nanothermite produced?
          Who makes it?
          How did it get to the WTC?

          1. What is the yield of the smallest nuclear device ever detonated in TNT equivalents?

            Nanothermite is a kindergarden project by comparison. All you need is silicon alkoxide, reduced aluminum, and iron oxide. All of these elements have to be in the nano-meter range.

            Nanothermite does exists. It has its’ own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

            1. Who produces it and how did it get to the WTC on 9/11? My sources said that it is cost prohibitive to produce and it has limited applications. What facility produces thousands of tons of useless nanothermite?

            2. According to my sources the only nanothermite that has any pop has to be produced in zero gravity. Only a few grams were ever produced.

              The Pentagon admits they have 10 ton nukes. That’s .01 kiloton.

              1. According to my sources the only nanothermite that has any pop has to be produced in zero gravity.

                Unicorns and leprechauns don’t count as sources Don.

                    1. This is ridiculous. Travis, Adam and other opponents of the mini nuke theory cannot explain

                      (1) why the buildings were blown apart in every direction from the top down;

                      (2) why the buildings were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust;

                      (3) why the buildings were destroyed in a way that left no massive debris pile in their footprints:

                      (4) why 115 dump trucks were bringing 100s of thousands of tons of dirt into Ground Zero;

                      (5) why USGS dust studies reveal elements that wouldn’t be there were it not a nuclear event;

                      (6) why some 70,000 first responders and local residents suffer from radiation medical maladies;

                      (7) how two 500,000-ton buildings could have been destroyed in 9 and ll seconds respectively.

                      In their totality, they leave no doubt about what happened to the World Trade Center on 9/11.

                    2. Well, you seem to know a lot about lies. To lie is to assert as true something you know to be false in a deliberate effort to mislead a target audience. Since I believe everything I assert here, even if I were mistaken on a point or two, that would only mean I had made a false assertion, which is a mistake, not a lie. Your insincerity is palpable and you have no defense for lying.

                    3. Stop acting like a pampered child and watch the video presentations! They leave no doubt about it. Only someone who is not promoting the truth would deliberately ignore so much evidence of the use of mini or micro nukes and wear his ignorance as a badge of honor. DISGUSTING!

                    4. You have probably stated that the USGS dust samples prove that nukes were used at least ten times on this thread.

                      I ask you to lay down an argument and you just point to some video. If you don’t understand this enough to lay down an argument, then you should stop citing this as proof.

                    5. What facility actually produces nanothermite? Chris Bollyn was not able to answer this question either so I doubt that you will be able to. Explosive nanothermite needs to produced in zero gravity. If it’s not produced in zero gravity then it is not explosive.

                  1. US Patent #5505799: Nanoengineered explosives

                    The reaction of metals (i.e. Al, Ti, Be . . . ) with inorganic oxides (i.e. CuO, Al₂O₃, MnO₂ . . . ) is well known. For example, the reaction of Al and Al₂O₃ to produce Al₂O₃ and Fe is referred to as the Thermite reaction, and it has been used for many years in metallurgical processes, such as welding.

                    Also, the enhanced reactivity of thin multilayer structures compared to powder mixtures has been observed by other researchers. The reactivity of thin multilayer structures is attributed to the energy stored in the layer interfaces and the very high ratio of interface area to volume.

                    However, the following three features of this nanoengineered explosive make unique and novel:

                    1. The use of carbon layers to prevent a passivating reaction between the metal and the oxide layers. Thus, the sequence of layers is unique.

                    2. The reaction sequence is a unique and essential part of this invention. The metals used in the nanoengineered explosive all react with carbon to form a carbide with the generation of considerable heat. This raises the temperature of the structure and results in a self-sustaining reaction:

                    metal(M)+carbon(C)→MC+heat

                    3. The inorganic oxides used are not thermodynamically stable. They can be easily reduced by reaction with carbon and carbide at high temperatures about 2000° C. Therefore, as the multilayer structure is heated by the carbide reaction the carbon/carbide layer will react with the oxide layer to produce a gas, such as CO:

                    C+MO→CO+M
                    Also, the carbides formed in the first reaction will react with the inorganic oxides to produce a gas, such as CO, pure metal from the oxide, and a more stable oxide from the metal in the carbide, for example:

                    Al+C→Al₄C₃ +CuO→Al₂O₃ +Cu+CO
                    Thus, it is seen that the carbon layers and the sequence of layers in the multilayer structure are the essential components of this invention. The metals and inorganic oxides, exemplified as the reactants are known. The enhanced reactivity of thin multilayer structures is also known. However, the nanoengineered explosive of this invention is the result of combining these known technologies.

                  2. If it’s not produced in zero gravity then it is not explosive.

                    Explain. Why would gravity have anything to do with it?

                    Could you cite a source that isn’t a leprechaun, unicorn, or fairy?

                    1. The only way to get the aluminum chips small enough to be explosive is in a zero gravity environment.

                      Gordon Duff is my source. We laid all of this out to Chris Bollyn over a year ago. He couldn’t name one facility on the planet that actually produces military grade nanothermite.

                      Nanothermite is a complete joke. Nanothermite is the same as DEWs: a fig leaf to distract from the true cause of the destruction of the WTC buildings – nuclear bombs.

                      Nanothermite cannot explain anything that happened at Ground Zero (there is a reason why it’s called Ground Zero folks!) because it does not exist. Regular old thermite is good for welding and that’s about it,

                      Anyone that touts the nanothermite theory in 2016 is either clueless or a shill.

                    2. OK Don. The two nanothermite patents and the Wikipedia page say nothing about zero gravity.

                      This makes no sense. Explain in chemical or physical terms why zerogravity would make a difference in the production of thermite.

              2. Well, the Oklahoma City bombing was a 2.5 ton TNT equivalent blast. From Wikipedia:

                The effects of the blast were equivalent to over 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg) of TNT

                So the Pentagon has 10 ton TNT equivalent nukes? How many do you think were used. I didn’t see evidence of even one 10 ton TNT equivalent blast. One 10 ton TNT equivalent blast would have been even more spectacular.

                  1. Did a blast do that, or was it intense heat and pressure?

                    If a blast did that before the demolition, it would have been caught on tape.

                    If a blast had done that after the demolition, you wouldn’t have this photo. You would have a huge crater.

                    1. Travis:

                      Excellent picture showing the equipment on the ground with the remains of the Lobby of Tower#1 leaning on Building #6. Right in the middle of the picture is the highest spot where fourteen people were alive in stairwell B. People are still saying this represents a 1/4 mile high building.

                      So if there were explosions sufficient to make the building disappear from this photo, how come those people weren’t killed by the concussion like Bobby Mc. was right in front of this building before it was destroyed?

                      That lone piece of steel in the middle of the picture was cut by a worker with a thermite lance on an angle… which is used by most everyone to say it was controlled demolition. The only thing is, the cut steel was done after the destruction took place.

                      The remains of the other Tower is on the right hand side of yjr picture also revealing the Lobby steel. Isn’t it amazing it didn’t fill the Lobby of either building??????

  24. Well Jim, the smallest nuclear device ever detonated was 4x more powerful than the bomb(s) that did this: data: http://image.oregonlive.com/home/olive-media/width960/img/oregonian/photo/2016/04/18/-4d8504b21cdc5ff2.jpg

    So you are saying that there were dozens of theoretically impossible devices used?

    Nuclear devices so small that they couldn’t possible work?

    Jim is going to tell us how to make a micro-nuke with 1/100 the critical mass of uranium-235. This is the only way you can have small enough nukes to do the damage seen. You have to make them theoretically impossible.

    And you also have to make them silent. These special Fetzer-nukes didn’t put off any radiation either.

  25. This is a JREF/alburySMITH conversation, Travis.

    What I struggle with, is what I must have missed to see the presentations so clearly. The evidence IS clear..the hypothesis, clear ,..The knowledge presented of highest qualify can be addressed by experts in rebuttal or in confirmation… The blast pattern and observable energy flows clearly show power source above and beyond normal conventional demolition technologies…some source other than shape charge/cutter and incendiary…if nothing else, the tonnages involved argue against such.
    What, in the known history of science and materiel, do we have to LOOK at?..to choose from that could achieve that impossible outpouring of cataclysmic energy at World Trade on 911? If not nuclear.
    This is clearly a nuclear event. Coherently explained, without doubt the most plausible of the various possibilities.
    Yet, the doors are shut everywhere. A great silence covers the land. Except in NY where another GLADIO distraction scurries media to ignore USAF perfidy in alliance with their ISISFORD terrorist proxies, as they cowardly bomb he Syrian Army at Dayr el-ZOR.

  26. The article’s subject, how Bobby’s death shows there were explosions unrelated to the plane impact took place at ground level, seems to have left its place to the discussion of the technical aspects of how the towers were brought down, and to the unavoidable banter about who is a true truther, who is an agent, who is a limited hangout gate keeper, who is smart and who is stupid, etc.

    In that sense, I am hoping my hypothetical question below will not be perceived as derailing the conversation even further.

    If, by some miracle, I had proof beyond the shadow of a doubt of how exactly the towers were brought down… Not the whodunit part, but the actual physical aspects of the whole process from the moment of plane impact to the pile of rubble we ended up with….

    Correct me please if you feel I am wrong, but the conventional wisdom is that once we show that the towers did not come down “due to structural damage, of course”, it will, in turn, prove that this was no “19 hijacker” setup, which will prove that people needed to have had access to the buildings prior to 9/11, and that there has been an ongoing and massive cover-up since that day by many people in high positions of power.

    So… My question is simple:

    Do you believe that such a revelation will indeed serve as a catalyst to start a chain reaction that will go far enough (and fast enough) to expose those who took part in the planning, execution and the cover up of this false flag, bring them to justice, and perhaps induce a “regime change” in the U.S., and we will then live happily ever after?

    And, here is an optional second question: At a time when the nation is getting ready to choose between two “evils”, do you feel the American people are ready to confront their true history of the past thee centuries, from the Revolutionary War to the Civil War, to the world wars, Vietnam, Cuba, JFK assassination, all of the engineered recessions, depressions, market crashes, rigged elections, and the blood suffering of millions upon millions??? Would the U.S. as a governmental institute survive the revelation of 9/11 truth? And, considering how the entire world was disrupted because of 9/11, would the world survive the revelation of 9/11 truth?

    Thank you.

      1. Well, ordinarily, I would take that as a huge compliment, especially coming from you, Adam.

        But, as I re-read through the prickly comments between provocateurs, agents, and the “I know best, kiss the rest” types currently commenting on this page, your kind compliment ends up translating to “the best beach in Alaska” or something to that effect. ;-}]

        The funny part (in a very, very sad way) is that while those who propagate the nuke theory don’t know shit about nukes,those who are on the nanothermite side don’t know jack about nanothermite… And neither one of these groups know anything about which army had what type of military grade destruction methods back in 2001. They have NO F’n idea….

        Yet, they don’t seem to have any reservations about calling each other imbeciles, morons, idiots, pathetic, incompetent, weak minded mediocrities, etc.

        So, to the agents, well-poisoners and all other insincere douchebags who are assigned Craig’s site, I say WELL DONE!!!! Mission accomplished…

        And to those who do not fall in these treasonous categories and still get suckered into such fruitless duels over and over again, I’ll use our dear professor Fetzer’s words: “GOOD GOD, MAN!!!!”

        Sorry to say this, but the Sunsteinistas are not the problem of the truth movement, YOU ARE!!! They are doing their jobs… What exactly are you doing???? Does it really worth fighting about how many eggs in the cake, if the cake is poisoned?

        To think that you can play tennis against an emotionless wall, and then win the match is beyond delusional. But it sure helps kill a few hours and break a sweat.

        (Adam, thank you for noticing and reacting to my post. It means a lot to me, and I really appreciate it.)

          1. “David, Since you extend the pretense of superior knowledge, why don’t you explain to the rest of us exactly how it was done? I would hate to think you would publish these posts AND NOT KNOW.” ~ Professor Fetzer

            I’m sorry if my message came across as how you perceived it, professor… Because, on the contrary, I know almost nothing about nanothermite or nukes, and I certainly don’t know “how exactly it was done”. I make no such claims, or pretend that I know…

            I don’t need to know what exactly the illusionist did, to know with 100% certainty that he did not really cut his assistant in half.

            Yes, it’d be nice to know how it was done, but it’s not a prerequisite.

            And if the next thing the magician does is to start a war in my name to avenge his assistant’s tragic death, I still don’t need to know the secrets to his trick to know, with 100% certainty, that there is a deception going on, and that the magician and the cabal he belongs to are involved in this deception…

            Forget about the crime part of it for a second… look at what these people accomplished… With a decade or longer of planning, with unlimited resources and access to civil and military technology, the best and brightest engineers, and guilt-free creativity, they have managed to bring down 3 magnificent and iconic structures, in one of the busiest cities in the world, with extreme precision and accuracy, and blew up a whole wing of the Pentagon in a matter of two hours. So, please forgive me for thinking that some amateur thermo physics calculation on the pages of a blog will crack this case open…

            While we have this 15 year long discussion about whether or not a plane hit the pentagon, we don’t even know who petitioned for and gave the green light for the reinforcing of this wing, when the project was approved, who worked on it, etc… So, do we really need to know, or more importantly, do we really need to quarrel and fight and call each other names about the chemical breakdown of nanothermite or how much of it was used or if it was used in this demolition? Do you not see and agree that this dynamic plays right in to the hands of the deceivers?

            Whatever was used to bring the towers down, I can tell you exactly how much of it was used: JUST THE RIGHT AMOUNT!!!

            And you can take that piece of knowledge to the bank!!!

              1. I will ask you something in all sincerity, Professor… If you know so much, and you know how it was done, and whodunit… You must also certainly know the ties that the perpetrators have with each other, as well as their ties to the handful of men who have been running this country covertly since its inception. Which would also mean that you have a pretty good idea about the power these people wield, how much of the nation and its resources and governance they own, how many atrocities they have engaged in, how many millions (perhaps billions) they have murdered… Which in turn would mean that you have a pretty darn good understanding of how the American Empire functions, and how 9/11 was not, and will not be the first and last atrocious act of murder and deception it has engaged in…

                So, what exactly are you doing here, spending hours quibbling with people and calling them names over some trivial bits of irrelevant technical specs of the demolition of the towers? What are you trying to achieve?

                In all these years of reading what you write, and listening to what you say, I am yet to witness a clear case where you have managed to convince and persuade, with your abrasive argumentative techniques, anyone who is mildly knowledgeable …. Which I have always found puzzling at best, considering your experience in teaching “scientific explanation, probability in science, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of cognitive science”.

                Just like you, sir, I am not being sarcastic… Nor am I engaging in any kind of ad hominem against you, or challenging your knowledge… If you desire that I and others watch the presentations you have provided (most of which I had already seen) I just need to understand what makes a person like you do what you do in the style that you do it.

                1. This is just silly. I am here because I cannot abide phonies and shills when the American people deserve to know the truth about their own history. I am here because the truth of 9/11 can make a difference to the future of our nation. I am here because there are too many–even within the 9/11 Truth movement–who are doing everything they can to keep the truth from coming out. I am doing the best I can to expose the truth and make it known to the American people. But of all the questions that could be directed to me, this has to be the one with the most obvious answer.

            1. David Hazan (@Lilaleo):

              I agree with your statement….. “Whatever was used to bring the towers down, I can tell you exactly how much of it was used: JUST THE RIGHT AMOUNT!!!

              People with “power” did it and it won’t get to the courts because they own them.

  27. Nanothermite as a mass produced military grade explosive does not exist. If you want to defend the nanothermite theory then you need to demonstrate where it is produced, who produces it and how it could be used in a building demolition. If Steve Jones and Chris Bollyn cannot provide this info then I seriously doubt any of the rest of you on this site can.

    Nanothermite = fairy dust.

    I got into this movement to explain to the public that the biggest buildings in America’s biggest city were nuked. I believe that the people like Bob McIlvaine deserve to know what really happened to their loved ones. One family member gets a call every year or so from the city and they found another part of his son: arm, leg, hand etc. He deserves to know that his son was nuked.

    Over one thousand people were completely vaporized at Ground Zero. High energy fast neutrons passed through their bodies and vaporized them. As Father Frank Morales stated “the soil was rich and moist from the bodies of the dead.” That point alone proves MASSIVE radiation was present at Ground Zero. Neutron radiation is a telltale sign of neutron bombs which were the true cause of the demise of the WTC buildings. Neutron radiation is also what toasted the 1,400 cars at Ground Zero.

    There are many people dying of cancer right now who worked on the pile. Does an incendiary like nanothermite cause bladder, testicular and thyroid etc. cancer? No. We know that barium, strontium, cesium etc. do.

    Jews were the prime force behind 9/11. Few people here would disagree with that point. The Jewish outlaw state in Palestine was designed from the beginning to be a nuclear terrorist state. JFK was at loggerheads with Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion over Israel’s illicit nuclear weapons program. Kennedy sent inspectors to Dimona to ensure that it was being used for peaceful purposes. Of course the Jews were producing plutonium there and they took out JFK for his efforts. JFK was not sending inspectors to Dimona to see if they were producing nanothermite.

    9/11 Truth = 9/11 was a Jewish nuclear terrorist attack. The outlaw Jewish nuclear terrorist state committed the ultimate act of nuclear terrorism on 9/11. Yet many of the so-called truthers deny this basic truth. Why?

    When the ZOG invaded Iraq did we hit them with nanothermite or nukes? Fallujah was nuked with the same type of nukes used on 9/11. Have we ever seen nanothermite used militarily since 9/11? No and we didn’t see it on 9/11 either.

    Nanothermite and DEWs are merely scams to describe a nuclear event while denying nukes. I’ve seen a lot of the “big names” in the “Truth Movement” promote these scams for years and years now. Is this scam really the best you can offer up to the public and the victim’s families?

    1. Nanothermite does exist and its’ manufacture is simple. Did you look at the 3 patents that I had posted? Did you look at the Wikipedia page? Did you fail high school chemistry?

      Thermite exists. This cannot be denied. It consists simply of iron oxide and reduced [elemental] aluminum. The highly exothermic reaction can be initiated my a magnesium fuse.

      Nanothermite is simply iron oxide and aluminum nanoscale particles. All that this means is that each particle is approximately 1-999 x 10⁻⁹ meters across. Most thermite is on the microscale, and is best measured in μm. Nano thermite particles are ~1000 times smaller and thus react much faster than regular thermite.

      This is kindergarden stuff, and Don thinks that this is impossible. What does that tell you about Don?

      1. Where is nanothermite produced then? Who is buying it? How did it get to Ground Zero? You can’t answer any of these questions. Don’t show me patents I want to see a facility that actually produces it.

        1. Where is nanothermite produced then?

          The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has synthesized it.¹

          Who is buying it?

          The U.S. Department of Energy paid for the study.¹

          How did it get to Ground Zero?

          Dumb question. Probably a truck.

          Don’t show me patents I want to see a facility that actually produces it.

          Lawrence Livermore is huge. Here is an aerial photo: http://www.pogo.org/assets/images/national-security/nuclear-weapons/llnl/lawrence-livermore-575px.jpg

          ¹[Acknowledgements] Synthesis and Characterization of Mixed Metal Oxide Nanocomposite Energetic Materials

          A few quotes from the paper for our illiterate friend:

          The starting materials are simple, inexpensive metal salts, primarily FeCl₃·6H₂O, either nano- or micron-grained aluminum particles, and an organic epoxide …The traditional redox reaction between iron(III) oxide and aluminum metal for a thermite composite energetic material is shown below in Equation 1. For this reaction, energy is Fe₂O₃ + 2 Al Al₂O₃ + 2 Fe + ΔH (1) released in the form of heat and light, however, there is no gas produced upon ignition of the thermite. By incorporating organic additives, a thermite can be prepared that will generate gas upon ignition of the energetic composite…Phenomenological burn observations indicate that the organic functionalized Fe/Si mixed oxide nanocomposites burn very rapidly and violently, essentially to completion, with the generation of significant amounts of gas….This reaction is very exothermic and results in the production of very high temperatures, intense light, and pressure from the generation of the gaseous byproducts resulting from the decomposition of the organic moieties…Figure 4, the burning of the composite with 40 nm aluminum occurs much too quickly to be able to observe the hot particle ejection displayed by the slower burning composite made with 2 µm aluminum. This observation is a good example of the importance mixing and the scale of the reactants can have on the physical properties of the final energetic composite material. When the degree of mixing is on the nano-scale, the material is observed to react much more quickly, presumably due to the increase in mass transport rates of the reactants, as discussed above….We have successfully synthesized energetic nanocomposites using sol-gel methodology that incorporate gas generators through an organic functionalized iron(III) oxide-silica oxidizing phase.

          1. Per T. Mark Hightower:

            Calculations can help define the magnitude of various theories. I am referencing a calculation that Niels Harrit emailed to me and various others on 7/26/2011. He calculated the amount of thermitic material that would have been necessary to account for the quantity of iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust, assuming of course that the iron reaction product of the thermite reaction was the source of the spheres. The range of thermitic material that he calculated was from 29,000 metric tons to 143,000 metric tons per Twin Tower, depending on the iron oxide concentration assumed for the thermitic material.

            An intermediate value from Harrit’s calculation referenced above was that conservatively 11,660 metric tons of iron-rich spheres were present in the dust generated from the destruction of one Twin Tower. If we assume that the iron-rich spheres were mostly iron, with the iron source possibly being the structural steel rather than thermitic material, the energy required to convert this much iron to the molten state can be calculated. (It is assumed that the iron-rich spheres required a prior molten state for their formation.) Furthermore, if we express the energy in terms of the quantity of TNT equivalent based on its heat of explosion, these units can give us something to relate to in terms commonly associated with specifying the magnitude of nuclear explosions, kilotons. So if the calculation is done for just the energy necessary to melt the iron, on the order of 1 kiloton of TNT is the energy equivalent required. If we also include the energy necessary to heat the iron from room temperature to its melting point, then on the order of 4 kilotons TNT equivalent would be required. Of course there would be more kilotons than this to account for all of the other destruction in addition to just producing the iron-rich spheres, so we are definitely talking about something in the multiple kiloton range. This helps to illustrate the magnitude of what we may be dealing with in the destruction of the Twin Towers and points towards the possibility of nuclear devices…

            Let’s take Harrit’s high end number of 143,000 metric tons per tower of nanothermite which is 286,000 metric tons for both. If the perps were to truck all of the nanothermite in here are the numbers:

            New York state truck weight limit: 36,000 pounds
            36,000 pounds = 16.33 metric tons
            286,000 / 16.33 = 17,514 truckloads of nanothermite

            How long would it take to unload 17,514 truckloads of nanothermite? Do you think someone might have noticed all of the nanothermite trucks on the street? How about all the people needed to unload the nanothermite from the trucks and load it into the Towers? This could in no way be considered a covert op at this point. It would be an overt op.

            And as Mark alludes to 4 kilotons of TNT equivalent is in the nuclear bomb neighborhood.

            Nanothermite use on 9/11 is a myth. It is a fig leaf for the nuke labs to cover their asses…

            This is not to mention that nanothermite is not explosive. Especially in the 40 nm range. You have to have the >10 nm to get any pop.

            1. This is not to mention that nanothermite is not explosive. Especially in the 40 nm range. You have to have the >10 nm to get any pop.

              Are you retarded? Did you not read the Lawrence Livermore summary that I had posted?

              When the degree of mixing is on the nano-scale, the material is observed to react much more quickly.

              The smaller the particles, the quicker the reaction.

              This reaction is very exothermic and results in the production of very high temperatures, intense light, and pressure from the generation of the gaseous byproducts resulting from the decomposition of the organic moieties.

              The addition of the alkanes in the nanothermite matrix gives rise to gas pressure.

              I would like to see the purported E-mail That Dr. Neils Harrit sent this Hightower guy. This seems like a lie to me. You would not need this much.

              You said:

              11,660 metric tons of iron-rich spheres were present in the dust generated from the destruction of one Twin Tower. If we assume that the iron-rich spheres were mostly iron, with the iron source possibly being the structural steel…

              Keep in mind that this is an assumption, and the source of the iron spheres was very likely the thermite itself.

              Are you going to keep posting bullshit from Veterans Today? Gordon Duff himself admitted on air that most of that website is intentional lies. And I quote:

              “About thirty percent of what is on Veterans Today is patently false. About forty percent of what I write is at least purposely partially false, because if I didn’t write false information, I wouldn’t be alive. I simply have to do that.”
              – Gordon Duff, Senior Editor of Veterans Today

              1. Travis, we’ve heard about these patents, but they do not provide detonation velocities. Here is T. Mark Hightower’s analysis of one uncovered by Chuck Boldwyn, who discussed nano-thermite combined with mini-nukes in Session 3, which you have not watched. Where are the detonation velocities? You appear to be pulling the same kind of scam we encountered with A&E911: No detonation velocities given in: “Patent for Nano-engineered Explosives which form an expanding gas to do work”

                T HIGHTOWER
                5:43 PM (2 hours ago)

                to Donald, me, wingedman
                Jim and Don,

                I just got through reading the entire patent. I don’t think I ever saw this patent before. Note also that the patent is about 20 years old. The patent offers no information about the degree of explosiveness attainable with an aluminum iron-oxide nanothermite.

                It mentions the classic thermite reaction between aluminum and iron oxide by way of reference.

                2 Al + Fe2O3 —> Al2O3 + 2 Fe

                But it adds elemental carbon, C, as the initial reactant with Al by placing the carbon layer between the aluminum and metal oxide layers. Also it illustrates the reaction of the patent with copper oxide instead of iron oxide. I have balanced the reactions which the patent did not do in order to more clearly see what is being claimed. The patent also claims that other organics besides C could be used, but it does not give any examples.

                4 Al + 3 C —> Al4C3

                Al4C3 + 9 CuO —> 2 Al2O3 + 9 Cu + 3 CO

                It is the generation of carbon monoxide gas, CO, whereby they claim it to be explosive.

                But the patent gives no experimental data or claims of attainable detonation velocities.

                Here is a brief quote from the patent, ” although experimental verification has not been completed on various materials for the metal-carbon-oxide multilayer structure of this invention.”

                So the patent claims certain possible elemental metals, carbon, and certain possible metal oxides, laid down in thin layers by vapor deposition according to a certain order, and that the result would give varying degrees of explosiveness, but it offered no information on varying degrees of explosiveness in terms of detonation velocities either claimed or experimentally determined.

                Here is the paragraph where I cite a 2010 paper for the detonation velocity of nanothermite. “But what does other peer-reviewed scientific literature actually have to say about nanothermite? “Nanoscale Aluminum-Metal Oxide (Thermite) Reactions for Application in Energetic Materials,” Central European Journal of Energetic Materials (2010), authored by Davin G. Piercey and Thomas M. Klapötke, identifies the fastest known combustion velocity for a mixture of metal oxide and aluminum: 2,400 meters per second (m/s), in a type of nanothermite made of copper oxide and aluminum. Remember that what Steven Jones found in the dust was iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite. The authors of this paper make it clear that copper-oxide/aluminum nanothermite is significantly more reactive than the iron-oxide version, and cite a combustion velocity of 895 m/s for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite aerogel. So 895 m/s is the highest velocity yet to be found for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite in the scientific literature, where this velocity is far too low to have played a significant role in the destruction of the Twin Towers by means of its shock waves.”

                So that’s my take on this patent.

                Mark
                T. Mark Hightower

                1. If Travis doesn’t know the difference, then he is surely too incompetent to be taken seriously; or if he does know the difference, then he is deliberately misleading the audience here. But he either knows the difference or he does not, which means that he is either too incompetent to be taken seriously or deliberately misleading the audience. In either case, Travis has now completely discredited himself. No one ought to take him seriously.

                    1. This is yet one more of your ridiculous remarks. None of us is with VT. Gordon and I parted ways in April 2015. You cite him as an obvious attempt to smear us when GORDON HAS NOTHING TO DO with the issues under consideration here. As for the sound effects, the mini nukes were at the center of the building emplaced in the core columns. You LOVE to pretend that they were on the order of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which further impugns your integrity. Part of the North Tower remained standing momentarily, where the steel skeleton of a church remained standing in Japan. You are trying too hard to make something out of nothing. You have nothing to offer. And of course you have no arguments so you have to resort to childish name-calling, which we all can see appears to be your greatest strength, your area of specialization: acting like a child.

                    2. Part of the North Tower remained standing momentarily, where the steel skeleton of a church remained standing in Japan.

                      ?

                      A standard Fetzerism.

                    3. You are pathetic. Aren’t you even reading the posts here? One argument (no doubt inspired by your implication that each building was destroyed by one huge nuke, even though we explain we are talking about a sophisticated arrangement of a large number of mini or micro nukes) is that the core columns of the North Tower remained standing briefly before they dissolved into dust.

                      But even the steel skeleton of a church remained after Hiroshima. Or are you also that ignorant about what happened in Japan? You are truly unbelievable. You introduce Gordon Duff into a discussion that has nothing to do with him; then when I expose your charade, you attempt to use it AGAINST ME FOR OUTING YOU AS A FRAUD? I am sorry. Everyone sees through you now.

                    4. Travis you wouldn’t know a fission pathway if one bit you in the ass.

                      And talk about imbeciles – you’re a guy that promotes a “theory” that the 9/11 perps hauled in 17,514 truckloads of non-explosive nanothermite to demolish 110 story skyscrapers. Who the hell takes you seriously?

                    5. “Don’t you realize that a subsonic detonation velocity for nanothermite actually strengthens the case for its’ use?”

                      Except for the fact that the buildings exploded. Now you are saying that because nanothermite is not explosive it explains how the WTC buildings exploded. What the hell kind of logic is that?

                    6. Don, you can have a subsonic explosion you moron.

                      Why don’t you two retards spread your idiotic garbage elsewhere.

                  1. From Wikipedia:

                    Supersonic explosions created by high explosives are known as detonations and travel via supersonic shock waves. Subsonic explosions are created by low explosives through a slower burning process known as deflagration.

                    Nanothermite is a highly exothermic [~800kJ/mol] subsonic explosive; the speed of which can be adjusted by the judicious addition of alkanes, which yields a high-pressure gas upon combustion.

                    1. It is a law of materials science–which cannot be violated and cannot be changed–that to blow apart a material, an explosive must have a detonation velocity that is equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material. The speed of sound in concrete is 3,200m/s, in steel 6,100m/s, but the highest detonation velocity attributed to nano-thermite in the scientific literate is 895m/s. What is there for you to not understand? Time and again, you demonstrate your incompetence.

                    2. Yes, of course. Firecrackers are a good example. But subsonic explosions cannot destroy either steel or concrete–and could not possibly have blown the Twin Towers apart, from the top down.

              2. Don and Travis:

                Interesting about the construction of nanothermite. I only have grade eight so a lot of this stuff your talking about is way over my head.

                I suppose the reason both of you are trying to prove a point is what is found in the dust of 9/11.

                Wasn’t most of the Towers turned into dust and which consisted of rust from the steel and the aluminum siding that turned to dust. Anyone with one eye can see the steel that is left is rusted as if it was in salt water for fifty years, yet it wasn’t that way when they erected these buildings, and every inch of it was coated with at least two hours rated asbestos so heat couldn’t hurt it. This also preserved it from rusting.

                What caused it to rust?

                1. Ionizing radiation caused the steel to rust. When I refer to nanothermite and DEWs being scams it is in the 9/11 context. I.e. that Judy Wood, Steve Jones, Neils Harrit, Chris Bollyn et al are attempting to describe the 9/11 nuclear event while denying nukes. They are all frauds.

    2. Don:

      Your going into an area I know a little something about. First off, by your post it is easy to see you have no idea what a “Jew” is. But just in case you do know, explain what a “Jew” is or explain the difference of Ashkenazy and Sephardic “Jews”? Your ready to get into “kill mode” but have no idea what you are talking about or who your supposed to go after. What do you think the word “Jew” stands for?

      Sammy Davis Jr. converted to Judaism so he could marry a beautiful “bombshell” blond gal. Does that make him a “Jew”?

      Would you be surprised to know the leaders of the west could be construed as “Jews”? And why the “West” protects the leaders of the state of Israel?

      What is funny is Craig McKee is related to them. Can’t you tell by the name?

      The subject is controversial as the topic we are discussing in this thread.

      You said…. “Nanothermite and DEWs are merely scams to describe a nuclear event while denying nukes.”

      Really? What is this in this picture…..

    3. I am reading your arguments and I feel helpless. The amount of nonsense and stupidity is staggering. Clearly you have zero scientific and engineering knowledge. This puts you on par with J. Fetzer who also is scientifically ignorant. But he at least sometimes can muster logical arguments.

      I decided to write this comment because of the following fragment you wrote:

      “As Father Frank Morales stated “the soil was rich and moist from the bodies of the dead.” That point alone proves MASSIVE radiation was present at Ground Zero. Neutron radiation is a telltale sign of neutron bombs”

      Clearly you have no clue what you are talking about and have no clue how to parse reality including metaphorical statement of Father Morales. How do you navigate in the world? Do you live in assisted living home?

  28. To David Hazan..yes to both. The time is now, and if the people ain’t ready for the truth, they soon will be.
    The paradigm shift gained exposing the utter falsity and duplicity of 911, and the neoconazionist controllers of it, will change the world in ways impossible to imagine. The entire ‘anti-Muslem’ deception will fall and expose a murderous machine of perfidy that will shake the stars in the heavens.

    The understanding of nuclear detonations at ground zero is primary to that shift. Really, the last door in a 15 year long maze holding us to ransom that always begged the question:WHAT was the energy source ?? What turned so much of those buildings into fine powder and molten Steel?
    This centres the argument. This Identifies the face of an enemy of all reason and love.
    From the standpoint of that comprehension, the entire picture comes into stark view. Like a sleep walker waking…The BLAST ZONE is a nuclear crime scene !

    This is a great truth. Not a little one, in the opening; as the light shines in. And the comic Travis has done me a favour, in that the responses to his fixation on an obviously inadequate nano materiel, by those skilled and able to refute him, have added to the projection of it.
    The internet is working.

    1. Remo, I apologize for not having noticed your reply sooner.

      I really wish I could share your optimism… I really do… But, history does not allow me to even entertain the idea, since there has not been a single example of a conspiracy of these proportions coming to light and making a difference.

      Extensive research by passionate people, and at times released documents, have revealed many a conspiracy, beyond the shadow of a doubt, from Lusitania to Pearl Harbor, from Gulf of Tonkin to JFK, MLK, RFK…

      Until 9/11 happened, JFK was the conspiracy that attracted most suspecting minds, since its repercussions are being felt even today (in fact, perhaps even more so today tan back then). There are websites upon websites where professionals, amateurs, aficionados, enthusiasts and agents and gate keepers scrutinize every forensic detail of the assassination. There are experts, professors, historians out there who are still arguing about the single bullet’s physical properties, even though it has been long shown that the actual bullet they have as evidence has not even been fired, even though the actual identities of some of the gunman and their connections have long been revealed, even though the people who are shown to have committed the crime have gone on to become CIA directors, vice presidents, presidents, whose offsprings have also become presidents, governors, etc… These same people were in charge of the government, CIA and key positions in the military on 9/11.

      Similar to the sentiments you express in your reply, the “JFK Nuts” are also very hopeful. If they could only show _________, or _________, then people will see and this case will be cracked!!! Any day now…

      By the way… Even if and when we get close enough to their deception to unravel the entire plot, don’t think that they would hesitate for a second to press one of the many buttons they have on the ready to bring down either the entire economy, or see nation or another, drop a nuke somewhere, start a major war, or whatever they would need to do to distract, pacify and neutralize the masses coming at them with pitchforks…

      Lastly… You say “the internet is working”… And I do not disagree that the internet has allowed all of us to get “less ignorant”. However, while being a major source of our strength, it also serves as the source of our greatest weakness by acting as the medium where “they” can follow, observe, analyze, interact with, sabotage, provoke, mislead and misdirect the so called truth movement and truthers… It’s almost a criminal’s fantasy situation where criminal has access to every detail of the investigation looking into his crimes…

      1. You are absolutely correct in every respect, David. Thank you. The enemy of all reason has us completely surrounded. Corralled in 911.
        My words make me sick half the time for writing them, are said only to express a hope in the face of this mind control terror machine. Yet this conversation still has meaning.
        A call to the unknown unknowns.
        That’s all.

    1. This blog appears to be about – or by – Don Fox. This needs to be clarified because it is against the rules of this blog for the same person to post comments under more than one identity.

      1. Craig…I was merely sending you the link to show you I was legit since you hadn’t approved my prior comment. Its ok if you don’t want to post the link. But its not Don. I just respect his work. Thx.

        1. I’m not sure I understand – are you saying all Jews have light skin? What do you mean by brothers?

          Anyway, I was quoting factastic Mr. Fox. I wonder what he means by ‘mud people’. Or “White” people for that matter.

    1. Even the neoconazionist HACKS at NYT or WPo and their homeland enablers won’t be able to obscure the real ‘middle eastern terrorist group’ having access to 5plus kiloton of 4th generation nukes.
      Don’t cha think?
      The ‘ cat would be out of the bag,’
      My guess is, that would make a difference.

  29. Nice article! The source for the Niels Harrit 29,000 ton figure is given in this E-mail:

    Mark

    On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 01:38 +0200, Niels Harrit wrote:
    > Mr. Hightower.
    >
    > This is meant as an order-of-magnitude estimate only. Every assessment will
    > be conservative so that the final volume of applied thermitic material
    > should be a safe lowest-limit.
    >
    > The RJ Lee Group carried out an investigation of the WTC dust very early
    > following 9/11.[1] Their reports were published in 2003[2] and in 2004.[3] A
    > wealth of findings therein indicated extreme temperatures during and
    > preceding the collapse.[4] But most importantly, in the present context,
    > the RJ Lee group found a whopping 5.87% content of iron-rich spheres in the
    > dust (see Table 3, p.28 in the 2003 report). In the same table a 0.04% is
    > reported as the expected value in normal building dust. So 5.83% of the
    > finding must be considered abnormal.
    >
    > According to the RJ Lee group, the dust was pushed through pedestrian
    > tunnels that connected WTC2 to the adjacent Deutsche Bank Building at 130
    > Liberty Street where RJ Lee Group took samples.[1] If any change in
    > composition due to gravity occurred during this event, it must have reduced
    > the relative amount of iron-rich spheres present in the dust, since iron has
    > a density of 7.9 g/cm3, while that of e.g. concrete is much lower, as it can
    > vary from 2,.3 to 3.4 g/cm3. That is, a content of 5.83% iron-rich spheres
    > is a lower limit for the dust produced at the WTC2 site.
    >
    > The only explanation for the presence of iron-rich spheres in these
    > quantities is the occurrence of thermitic processes (paint, incendiaries,
    > explosives) preceeding the collapses or during the collapses of the Twin
    > Towers.
    >
    > The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report estimated more than 1.2
    > million tons of building materials were pulverized during the whole WTC
    > event.[5] However, the lowest and most reliable estimate of the mass of one
    > of the towers (WTC1 or WTC2) is 288.000 metric tons.[6] This is the ”raw”
    > building. To this, let us add 50.000 tons, accounting for everything you put
    > into such a tower, but subtract the 90.000 tons (too high, conservative)
    > structural steel. Then, we end up with ca. 250.000 tons of pulverizable
    > material per tower (WTC1 or WTC2).
    >
    > In order to stay on the absolutely safe side, let us subtract a further
    > 50.000 tonnes and say that the RJ Lee Group sampling was representative of
    > 200.000 tonnes pulverized tower.
    >
    > This means, that there were produced at least 0.0583 x 200000 = 11.660
    > tonnes iron-rich spheres per tower. The iron-rich spheres contained varying
    > trace amounts of aluminum and silicon (which in itself is an unambiguous
    > proof of their thermitic origin). Since no overall quantitative estimate of
    > these contaminants exist, let us lower the amount of pure iron formed in
    > thermitic processes during and preceeding the collapse of one tower to
    > 10.000 tons.
    >
    > As I suggested, let us fancy a thermitic material with an ironoxide content
    > of 10%. This is arbitrary. You may substitute this number with any other
    > below, say, 50%.
    >
    > The molecular mass of Fe2O3 is 159.7, iron is 55.8 each. That is, ferric
    > oxide produces 70% elemental iron upon reduction.
    >
    > So one kilo of the thermitic material can produce a maximum of 70 g iron.
    >
    > If we assume, that ALL the thermitic material should react to form iron
    > spheres (please notice, that this is another highly conservative condition),
    > RJ Lee Groups observation implies that:
    >
    > (10000 x 1000 x 1000)/70 = 143.000.000 kg =
    >
    > 143.000 metric tons thermitic material
    >
    > was present in WTC2 prior to collapse.
    >
    > Of course, it is five times less, if the iron oxide content is 50%.
    >
    > Still, it’s a lot.
    >
    > Find the error!
    >
    > NH

    This is taken out of context by those wishing to disparage the nanothermite theory. All that this calculation shows is the amount of thermite [10% Fe] required to create 10,000 metric tons of iron, the amount that was statistically calculated based on one underground sample of dust. However, there is good reason to assume that this underground sample of dust contained an unusually high concentration of iron spheres owing to its’ proximity to the molten iron pool in the WTC substructure.

    This is not a calculation showing how much thermite would be required to demolish the towers.

  30. James Henry Fetzer:

    Regarding your post September 23, 2016 at 10:20 pm way up on the page, which doesn’t have a reply box, you said…. “The explosion in question appears to have been one of the two set off in the subbasements of each tower to weaken their foundations and drain the sprinkler systems of water. Willie Rodrigues came to Madison and, while we were having dinner after his talk, he described to be watching the water fill the subbasements.”

    Considering there is seven floors down there, which one was filling with water? The reason why I ask is the whole complex is connected and there isn’t any water in much of it. There isn’t any water under buildings #4 and #5 in the delivery level which also still have the lights on the day after. The Mall has no water and just some dust with t-bar askew with a lot of firemen walking around.

    I know there were explosions because we all heard them, how do you know these explosions was for the purpose of weakening the structure? The buildings were destroyed from the top down as you have said several times, so it doesn’t make sense to blow the concrete in the basement.

    Every level had a water tank to accommodate water use for toilets and the sprinkler system, and it doesn’t make sense to drain the water system in the basement if there is multiple tanks throughout the building which can’t be drained by whatever means in the basement. The water supply was pumped from floor to floor with one way valves.

    I don’t doubt there was water but for sure according to the pictures it wasn’t everywhere, nor was a large area damaged by the explosions.

    In regards to your Part 2 session you have a picture of several firemen working in an area with a “bright light in their faces at the 9:17 part that is used to say there is molten metal. It’s actually a 500 watt light to help them see what they were working on. Someone who understands cameras and pictures put a filter on it and it is clear as day what it is……

    Another photo you used which is all over the inter-net regarding the famous big steel beam that is cut on an angle and is used by most groups to say it was controlled demolition using thermite. You might want to know that beam was cut with a thermic lance as this picture shows…..

    It takes a lot of time to look at everything to see if what people are saying is truth in their zeal to support their beliefs. I better not use to many pictures because Craig wont allow it. I believe there were explosions but I wont say what caused them because I don’t know and there isn’t any pictures of charges. If fact one guy is saying they can’t find the residue of charges.

    I hope one more picture is allowed of the Mall that wasn’t blown to bits by an explosion so it wasn’t in that area…..

    1. Egad! The explosions in the subbasements are well known. They were meant to be timed with the apparent impacts of the planes, so that jet fuel falling though the elevator shafts could be cited to account for them. They registered .7 and .9 on the Richter scale. But they went off 14 and 17 seconds early (before the alleged plane strikes). Haven’t I explained all of this before? See “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job”, by Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong (on-line).

      William Rodriguez was the Senior Custodian in the North Tower. He was present when the blast took place there. When he came to Madison and gave a talk about his experiences, we had dinner together and he described the subbasements filling with water. Those explosions were designed to drain the sprinkler systems of each building of water so they could not extinguish the modest fires that remained after the fireballs consumed prepositions napalm and jet fuel.

      If you watch my presentation or that of Chuck Boldywn, then you know that the steel in the subbasements was 6″ thick, then 5″ and so forth tapering to the top, where it was only 1/4″ thick. It would take a lot to destroy the subbasements, where these explosions appear to have also been intended to make a contribution. In his article, “A World Living in a Volcano of Lies” (on line), Dennis Cimino explores the possibility that a large nuke was used to finish the job, once the demolition had begun by blowing the buildings apart from the top down. You should read it.

      1. James Henry Fetzer:

        Mr. Fetzer I think you are speculating why those explosions occurred and as you pointed out in one of your films the elevators are all staggered except for the freight elevators that go right up to the top. As we can see with the numerous videos the whole thing was a deception.

        Though some of the delivery garage has some cave in, the rest is a wide open tunnel with different colored paint to show the drivers which building they were under. There isn’t any damage at all under Buildings #4 and #5 where they are side by side with pink and lime green colours and on top of it all the lights are still on the day after. So those explosions that were felt in the lobby where Bobby Mc. got killed couldn’t have come from the delivery garage nor in the Mall area nor from Building #6 right next to the Tower. Whatever cored out that building without damaging the exterior walls but didn’t go through the main floor was powerful enough to make all that material disappear upward, because it isn’t there. It don’t make sense to say it was nuclear blasts or controlled demolition with charges when you factor all of these strange things into the picture. .

        When the phrase “the subbasement” is said, it seems it is meant the whole thing was exploding but as I keep bringing up the pictures of the area under the main floor, such as the train station most of the rail cars are not damaged.

        When you were talking to Rodriguez, did you ask what was in the basement that could cause an explosion? Where were the transformers for the electrical grid? When things are shorting out, there is a lot of heat sufficient to melt aluminum making it look like molten metal and exploding the transformers. And not all the transformers blow. We see those things blow in the tornadoes videos as it moves across a town in the dark. Each building is like a small city so they had to have some electrical area under the main floor. One part of the town is in darkness while another part still have lights, like in the delivery garage even when most everything disappeared above the main floor.

        You said…. “Those explosions were designed to drain the sprinkler systems of each building of water so they could not extinguish the modest fires that remained after the fireballs consumed prepositions napalm and jet fuel.”

        How do you know it was designed to drain the sprinkler system? That doesn’t make sense because in order to get water to the top there are tanks along the way and filled up and then the water is pumped up to the next level and everything has one way valves so it can’t drain out. The pressure of water would be so high it would blow out the pipes so they have to reduce the pressure by having tanks throughout the building. Any community built on a hill having the supply water at the bottom knows what happens to washing machines that are set at 90 pounds pressure. The machines at the bottom fill over full because of the pressure.

        So you see it doesn’t make sense thy tried to drain the system from the basement. Considering the size of the explosion the water supply could have been broken but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have water in the tanks above the explosion.

        I hauled Jet A and B and it is only kerosene or a diesel without the paraffin wax. Anything puddled on the floor would burn with heavy black smoke, like in the dumpsters outside the Pentagon.

        Once the desks burn off there is nothing else to burn because everything is steel. The lady wearing a white suit was waving her jacket in the jagged hole were it was blown out. There wasn’t any fire there.

        Also, when you look at the final 9 seconds of the destruction, it wasn’t blown up, it unraveled into dust almost like you peel a banana. The highest part of the debris pile was Stairwell B where 14 people survived. You have to explain why these people were not affected by explosions or crushed by debris. There couldn’t have been any because they are alive.

        The buildings were not blown apart anyone with one eye can tell you that.

        Oh! BTW what’s an “Egad”?

  31. I know this thread is concerning the explosion that killed Bobby Mc. and I don’t know where to go to put this picture in. Most of you still think planes hit the Towers. Some smart guy found the program, just watch this to see what I mean…..

    1. Lars van Pilsum

      Why do you think that is thermite making those sparks? Electric lines on soft metal will do that. Get some rubber gloves and stick a wire in a 110 volt socket and see what you get. Better yet use the dryer or the stove plugs with 220 wiring . There is some big equipment in those Towers requiring three phase to run them. Remember the big explosion in the upper part blew a big hole in the facade. There’s electrical wire everywhere. Supposition doesn’t count.

      We don’t know what caused those sparks.

        1. Craig McKee

          I agree it is speculation. When you see those sparks falling and hitting the window sills, what do you think it is? If you say thermite, that’s a speculation. You might want it to be thermite because you think it was brought down by charges of thermite but that does not make it so..

          The reason why there is so many possibilities is because no one knows. You can pick what you think is a good probability but what is missing is the facts.

          It is no different then people thinking a plane hit the Pentagon. You have to get the facts and you did that and you convinced me there wasn’t a plane there.

          If you can say honestly those sparks are cased by thermite, prove it.

            1. Lars van Pilsum:

              Nice slow motion shot of the Tower unraveling into powder from the top going down.

              Are you absolutely sure what you are seeing is caused by thermite? The reason why I ask is the vast majority have no idea what thermite looks like or how it functions, yet you think this is thermite, why?

              I understand how anyone who sees controlled demolition and is explained by the company doing, it how they did it. But here there is nothing to explain anything but you figure this is causing the building to turn to powder at 1/10th of a second per,floor above what you see. How is it turning steel to powder?

              1. You and your strawmen! Of course steel does not turn into powder. The flashes that you can see in some videos, the squibs that you can see in some videos, and the symettry of collapse are all indicative of controlled demolition.

                You also have chemical proof from Harrit et al of thermitic material and microspheres,data from the EPA of microspheres, data from the RJ Lee Group of microspheres, and data from the USGS of microspheres. Chemical engineer Mark Basile has also found tnanothermite in the dust.

                You have a high temperature molten steel puddle in the bathtub. Thermal images from NASA show this as well as scores of photographs.

                All of the evidence points to thermite. There may have been a different explosive used as well, but there is no hard evidence found of this.

                There is strong evidence of thermite, and little evidence of anything else.

                1. Lars van Pilsum

                  Just because you think it is a controlled demolition made with thermite, doesn’t make it so.

                  You said…. “Of course steel does not turn into powder.”

                  I agree with you if I believed it was done with thermite. The fact is, the steel did turn into powder because there isn’t enough on the ground when the building stopped unraveling. Right in front of your eyes in the slow motion videos you see steel turning to powder before it hits the ground.

                  You said… “the squibs that you can see in some videos,”

                  Your supposing those squibs are caused by explosions. That’s not facts. You have no idea what is causing that. There are water tanks in the building for water supply, what do you think would happen when the water in those tanks start expanding and there is no room for it to expand further? The building is unraveling from the top down. It is not exploding because there isn’t any explosions heard, just the noise of the material falling. Each floor came apart in 1/10th of a second and you see dust and powder. Thermite can’t do that in 1/10th of a second.

                  There are all sorts of experiments made showing how thermite can cut beams of steel but none of them cut four inch steel in 1/10th of a second.and then turn them into powder.

                  The famous spire that sticks up seventy floors up and is attached to other main core steel is seen for a few seconds. Where is it in the debris? It actually turns to dust right in front of your eyes. If thermite was supposed to do its job on this steel, it failed. You don’t see bright light that thermite gives off as it fades into powder. It was a controlled demolition alright but not with thermite. Nor with Nukes.

                  I thought the same thing you did concerning the microspheres. You said…. “You also have chemical proof from Harrit et al of thermitic material and microspheres,”

                  Wait a second, what were the buildings made of? Steel and concrete covered with aluminum siding. Most of this turned into dust and powder and continued to do so after it was on the ground. We re not supposed to put the same pictures up Craig’s orders so scroll up and look at the ambulance parked in front of the main doors above in this thread. What do you see?

                  Don’t you see aluminum? It was fastened to the steel facade but in that picture the steel is missing. The fireman is walking on the pavement in front of where Building #1 was. Why does the ambulance not have any dents on it? Why is it not crushed by falling debris like steel or concrete chunks? Even a desk on it would be something but there is nothing. This picture was taken on 9/11 and the building behind the photographer is still there.

                  Neils Harrit doesn’t look at all these facts, all he does is look at the dust which reveals the rust is from the building along with some aluminum siding. Thermite is made from rust and aluminum but so were the buildings after they were destroyed one floor at a time.

                  Assumptions is not facts. Harrit is a Chemical Engineer, does he explain why the buildings were turning into powder in 1/10th of a second?

                  We all see it turn into powder. That’s what happened. There is very little steel on the ground. The highest point of the building had fourteen people in that pile which was only three stories high. So nothing went into the basement below these people and it isn’t on the street where the fireman is walking with the ambulance there in almost perfect shape.

                  Does Neils Harrit explain why these people were not cooked or blown apart by charges made from thermite in Stairwell B? The rest of the building disappeared around them and sunlight shown down on them for a brief moment. And then there was microsheres on them.

                  You said…. “Chemical engineer Mark Basile has also found tnanothermite in the dust.”

                  Do you mean to say “the ingredients of nanothermite” was in the dust which has to have sulfur in it. Do you realize they were cutting steel on the site with thermic lances?…..

                  The site was a crime scene but it was treated as an ordinary controlled demolition and was contaminated from the get go. Everyone who is a Thermitic believer points to the one beam cut on an angle and don;t realize there is a picture of a guy cutting it with a lance.

                  If your going to be an investigative reporter, you have to look at everything for pertinent information, not just the people who have the same views as you do.

                  You said…. “There is strong evidence of thermite, and little evidence of anything else.”

                  You should add to that… “that I know of”.

                  If your looking at alternative media, which is the only place you can look for “truth”, you will see the USA has weapons that can destroy buildings without explosives and Dana Dunford shows a picture revealing such a weapon being used in the Gaza Strip…..

                  I bet you never thought something similar could have been used on the WTC complex.

                    1. Lars van Pilsum:

                      My argument is you don’t know what happened. You see a squib and think this must be thermite. You see a very small dot of light and somehow in your mind you equate this in cutting 47 four inch big steel core columns, as well all the columns in the facade and this all at the same time across every floor at 1/10th of a second and you call me stupid??????

                      You can’t conceive in your mind that the armed forces have weaponry sufficiently powerful to cause molecules to disassociate themselves and to cause hard steel to turn into rust powder.

                      That one picture reveals a weapon that destroyed that building without fire. Compare that to the three other pictures that were caused by explosives. It’s a guarantee you don’t know what caused it but you do see what it did.

                      There isn’t anyone else in the world who could have done this except individuals in the Government and the person that used to own those buildings before Silverstein. His family owns Chevron oil. Just so you know, The word “chevron” is an Aramaic word meaning “association”.

                      The people who manipulated the stock market and stole trillions of dollars including all the money in Enron were accomplices in this. That’s why Building # 7 had to be destroyed because there were 2300 cases due in court to blow their scheme all to hell and all of it was in Building # 7. there is no other reason why that building had to go.

                      And note, whatever it was they used was able to destroy only the WTC buildings in such a way that there was hardly any steel left on the ground. Thermite can’t do that. There are huge round holes in what’s left of those buildings including Building #6 which didn’t destroy the outer walls but everything else disappeared into powder. Thermite can’t do that.

                      So get out of the box you placed yourself in and investigate this further. It’s right in front of your face and you don’t want to see it.

                    2. Roger, I must say I’m becoming tired of your repetition of the “we don’t know what happened” claim. No one that I know of has ever said that the squibs we’ve seen were caused by thermite. In fact, I’ve never heard anyone claim that thermite was what brought the buildings down on its own. Obviously the bulk of the explosion destruction was done by some force other than thermite. As I’ve said, Niels Harrit (and please, everyone, can we start spelling his name right: it’s Niels, not Neils) says this. He says thermite was only a small component of the destruction.

                      What you offer us is speculation and guessing. I’ve said this before, and I’m saying it again. Do you think you are helping anything by attacking the controlled demolition position? Can’t we just agree that the buildings were destroyed by some type of explosive force? And, yes, it was explosive. There were steel beams embedded in buildings hundreds of feet away. We also have evidence that nanothermite was one of the substances used to bring about the destruction we saw. Maybe something unconventional was used also, but it is pointless for us all to fight over that!

                      I think you’ve made your point dozens of times on this thread. You don’t don’t what happened and you think steel turned to powder. Got it. Time to take a break.

                    3. Well, yes, of course, the T\win Towers CANNOT have been BLOWN APART by nano-thermite. We have known that SINCE 2011! So what have you and A&E911 been doing since? Where is the explanation of HOW IT WAS DONE, since NANO-THERMITE CANNOT HAVE DONE IT? How dumb are we supposed to be when this organization of architects and engineers KNOWS THAT NANO-THERMITE CANNOT HAVE DONE IT cannot explain how it was done? There are many proofs (provided in this discussion thread) that it was done using MINI AND MICRO NUKES. That can explain what happened. No other account comes close. I do not understand the extended denial of the obvious, which is proven on this thread. ENOUGH DENIAL. THE PROOF HAS BEEN PRESENTED HERE.

                    4. I’m not sure I understand the question about what I and AE911Truth have been doing since 2011. I am a volunteer who writes occasional articles for AE. I am not an architect or an engineer. I continue to take the position that differences over the method used to blow the towers up should not lead to major fights in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Nor should they lead to attacks on AE. That’s my opinion.

                      And who says the towers were blown apart by nanothermite? Richard Gage doesn’t say that. Neither does Niels Harrit. This strikes me as a straw man argument.

                    5. “And who says the towers were blown apart by nanothermite? Richard Gage doesn’t say that. Neither does Niels Harrit. This strikes me as a straw man argument.” Well, then, what caused the buildings to blow apart in every direction from the top down? Since they acknowledge that it cannot have been done by nanothermite, then why not tell us how it actually was done? There is nothing remotely “straw man” about the failure of A&E911 to answer even this crucial question.

                    6. Niels Harrit does not like it when people spell his first name wrong. I did this in an email to him about 5-6 years ago. When he signed off, he did it with: “N-i-e-l-s.” Being inebriated, I didn’t notice the hyphens, and I replied to him and spelled it wrong again. Later I wrote to him after noticing my blunders and apologized. I’m sure he was quite annoyed.

                    7. Craig,

                      “yes, it was explosive. There were steel beams embedded in buildings hundreds of feet away.”
                      You are here suggesting that explosive charges placed near or next to large streel members (not merely individual beams – entire wall panels of 3 columns, each 36 feet long, connected by spandrels; and even assemblies of several panels – were embedded in buildings hundreds of feet away).
                      Now, it is possible to estimate the minimum charge size of high explosives that could do this: A ballistic curve would require a lateral velocity of around 60 mph, this translates to a certain momentum and kinetic energy that the explosive charge would have to transfer into those panels. Now, momentum is a conserved quantity; to account for it, the momentum of the explosive charge must equal that of the panel; this means: If, for example, the mass of the charge is 1/100 of the mass of the panel, the explosive gases would need an average velocity of 6000 mph (100 * 60 mph). We are thus easily talking about supersonic blasts – and indeed only supersonic blasts make sense for CD in the first place.
                      Then, energy is conserved – the chemical energy of the explosive material must equal at least the sume of kinetic energies of both the gaseous products and the panel (plus whatever is lost to material deformation, heat, acoustic and seismic waves…).
                      This gives us a couple of equations. If you enter reasonable estimates for specific energy of the explosive, and do the algebra, you will find that, to send 1 ton of on a ballistic curve from, say, the 95th floor of the North Tower to the Winter Garden, you need to expend at a theoretical minimum around 20 pounds of explosives. The lightest wall panels weighed 6 or 7 tons, so the minimum charge that does nothing than hurl that panel would have to be 120 or 140 pounds. And that would do nothing but hurl! It would do nothing to break any steel or oulverize any concrete. Also, its placement etc would have to be carefully optimized for the purpose of the hurl – which no charge would be. Realistically, charges would need to be several times larger than the theoretical minimum computed – a quarter or half a ton of supersonic blasts – and you must claim there were several, even many of those.

                      Yet there was no bang.

                      Conclusion: It is impossible that these steel segments were hurled by explosive charges.

                      We also have evidence that nanothermite was one of the substances used to bring about the destruction we saw.”
                      It is difficult to understand why you and so many of your peers still cling to that hoax.
                      No, Harrit et al’s paper did NOT show evidence of nanothermite – much less that any of it was “used” for what you say. The data contradicts the conclusions.
                      Mark Basile’s data from six years ago contradicts the conclusion “nanothermite”: He found that there is less than 2% Al in the red material, and more than 70% carbon / organic material. It is not possible for such a substance to reach the sort of temperatures that Harrit and friends claim, and anyway 99% and more of the energy of the observed and measured reaction would come from burning the organic binder on air – NOT from a thermite reaction.

                      It is telling that Basile, more than three years after having been provided with $5000 for his test proposal, and more than two years after he announced he’d send red-gray chips to independent labs, still has not done a thing, has no results, apparently hasn’t even identified any specimens to be tested. I think he simply can’t find any “thermitic” chips, and is too shy to declare he found out that the whole thing is a hoax.

            1. Lars van Pilsum:

              Just because some guy making this video writes it in white letters saying. “maybe” or “there were containers of thermite” or “probably hit be the concussion” doesn’t mean he is right in his perception.

              Perception is not always reality.

              There are no facts to say there was thermite in the building nor does any one know why these these people are out on the window ledge. I’m thinking with your scenario, if there is a concussion some of those people would be air born, but that didn’t happen.

              How can you say this is “profound” yet there isn’t one fact your right. Guesses don’t count. Your no different then the rest of us, we don’t know.

              But we know it turned into powder because 2 billion people saw that, but not one person except the perpetrators know what did it.

              Remember… there is fourteen people who were not crushed by falling steel and concrete or burned by thermal energy, nor killed by kinetic energy and the only thing they experienced is a heavy wind trying to lift them up and dust falling on them. Whatever the energy was, it didn’t hurt these people nor did it leave hardly any steel on the ground as some of the pictures reveal above in this thread.

              One thing you learn from watching all those hotels destroyed in Vegas or elsewhere in the US, all the charges go off when the building collapses because it is done in sequence throughout the whole structure.. But here it unravels starting at the top and works it’s way down.

              One guy is the blaster who sets all the charges, the rest are technicians or the grunts who carry the stuff and told where to put it. That means if it was thermite, there had to be enough to turn four inch steel into powder in 1/10th of a second. If you investigate enough videos, you will know thermite needs an ignition to set it off and it takes longer then 1/10th of a second to ignite it then burn through like liquid yet at the same time turn into powder all in 1/10th of a second. That doesn’t make any sense at all.

  32. Craig McKee:

    Here is some information in this clip that indicates Giuliani and one of his sidekicks knew about the explosions in the basement and your looking for information about how Bobby Mc. got killed.

  33. In view of the topic of this thread pertaining the explosion that killed Bobby Mc., according to William Rodriguez in B1 the explosion was below him in the generator floor B2 where the guy Philipe David was burnt with his skin hanging off.

    Rosie O’donell was doing the interview..

    If this is the same explosion, it had to go up two floors of the basement but not hurting Willy and fourteen others, then wrecking the Lobby.

    Just something to think about.

  34. OK. I am sick of hearing the claim that rust from the columns and aluminum from the siding can spontaneously create nanothermite as a result of an explosion. This is impossible, and here’s why: Take a look at XEDS spectra [fig10][fig15] from the Harrit¹ et al paper, you can see that the material contains Fe₂O₃, Si, O, C, and Al. You can plainly see that the O is not invariably associated with the AL. This is important. This means that the Al is not oxidized. Any nanoscale particle of Al would oxidize at high temperatures nearly instantaneously. This is one reason why a spontaneous assemblage of nanothermite is impossible as the result of an explosion.
    The reason that Al is protected from oxidation, and the reason why there is so much silicon and carbon, is that there is a nanopolymer of ethoxysilane surrounding the Al nanoparticles. Something similar to this: http://d10k7sivr61qqr.cloudfront.net/content/royinterface/6/37/719/F2.large.jpg
    This should be no surprise that the Harrit paper found Si and C, since these are elements of ethoxysilane. From the Lawrence Livermore² nanothermite paper:

    In a typical reaction, FeCl₃·6H₂O (0.84g, 3 mmol) was dissolved with stirring in 3.8 g of 200 proof ethanol in a polyethylene vial to give a yellow-brown solution. Once the FeCl₃·6H₂O was dissolved, the desired amount of organosilane (Fe/Si atomic molar ratio of 3-5) was added to the solution and the resulting mixture was allowed to stir for 10 minutes….The two silsesquioxanes investigated were the commercially available (tridecafluoro-1,1,2,2 -tetrahydrooctyl)triethoxysilane (TDFTES) and (heptadeca-fluoro-1,1,2,2 tetrahydrodectyl)triethoxysilane (HDFTES), and are shown below.

    If you look at the spectrograph [fig7] of the Harrit paper you will see all of these elements in the quantities that you expect from nanothermite as desribed by the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories. The amount if Silicon in steel³ is only .2% to 1% at most. There is no way that this material would spontaneously form with more silicon than Iron. And if you look at figure 26 and 27, you will see that that iron spheres found in the dust have way more than 1% Silicon; more like 25%.
    The spontaneous nanothermite theory is a cartoon. For this to happen, Iron Oxide would have to pulverized to the nanoscale, Aluminum would also have to be pulverized to the nanoscale but kept away from oxygen somehow, large amounts of alkylsilanes would have to magically appear out of nowhere, and these three component would have to magically fuse and polymerize without incorporating any gypsum or concrete powder.
    If Roger Gloux wants to continue making the claim that this is somehow possible, he needs to provide a better explanation than merely innuendo. This is a physical impossibility as far as I can tell, and I am sure that 99.9% of chemists would agree.

    ¹http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf
    ²https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf
    ³https://www.steeltank.com/Portals/0/Articles/Effect%20of%20Chemical%20Elements%20in%20Steel.pdf?ver=2009-05-31-010753-797

    1. “I am sick of hearing the claim that rust from the columns and aluminum from the siding can spontaneously create nanothermite as a result of an explosion.”
      You are right, that claim is ridiculous.
      There is a much more plausible claim: That the red material is indeed an industrial product – paint.

      “Take a look at XEDS spectra [fig10][fig15] from the Harrit¹ et al paper, you can see that the material contains Fe₂O₃, Si, O, C, and Al.”
      Be careful: Fig 10 is from chip a, which is further analysed in Figures 5a, 6a, 7a, 8a and 9. It is characterized by a spectrum that contains lots of C, O and Fe, and almost equal amounts of Si and Al – and only traces of other elements (according to another publication by Niels Harrit, traces of Cr and Sr). It contains particles of rhombic grains (~100 nm in all dimensions) that, per Fig 10 and 11, are associated with Fe, and platelets (1µm wide and ~40 nm thin, sometimes stacked) that are associated with Si and Al.
      Fig 15 is from the chip which they had soaked in MEK. They did not show that it contains the Fe-rich grains nor the Al-Si-rich plates, and the red layer spectrum, Fig 10, is much different from Fig 7, in that it has significant Ca, S, Zn, Cr and Mg in addition to the five elements that chip a has. Some of the Ca may be present as gypsum together with S, but not all of the Ca can be accounted that way.
      In short: There is no evidence that Fig. 10 and 15 show the same material, and indeed there is evidence that they are different materials. So you can’t compare them.

      “You can plainly see that the O is not invariably associated with the AL. This is important. This means that the Al is not oxidized.”
      No, you cannot see that from an XEDS map. In such a map, a pixel is switched “on” if the element in question exceeds some threshold level in the x-ray count. This level is arbitrary. If you see a dark spot in the oxygen map, it doesn’t mean there is no O, it only means that some (unknown to us) threshold has not been exceeded. You can be rather sure that the organic matrix has both O and C everywhere. Look at Fig. 11 a+b., where Harrit et al focused on the iron oxide grains and the platelets: Both spectra have plenty of C and O!
      But with oxygen being in the picture everywhere, you generally cannot tell with any confidence at all what it is, or isn’t, associated with.

      “The reason that Al is protected from oxidation, and the reason why there is so much silicon and carbon, is that there is a nanopolymer of ethoxysilane surrounding the Al nanoparticles.”
      This is pure speculation. There exists no analytical test result that would point to this chemistry as opposed to some much more mundane chemistry.

      “This should be no surprise that the Harrit paper found Si and C, since these are elements of ethoxysilane.”
      Si is clearly associated with Al per Fig 10 and 11, and they are associated with the hexagonal plates. There is a simple explanation for this: Kaolin clay, an aluminium silicate that has Al and Si in almost equal amounts. And C is everywhere because the matrix is a hydrocarbon.

      “From the Lawrence Livermore² nanothermite paper (https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf)”:
      […]The two silsesquioxanes investigated were the commercially available (tridecafluoro-1,1,2,2 -tetrahydrooctyl)triethoxysilane (TDFTES) and (heptadeca-fluoro-1,1,2,2 tetrahydrodectyl)triethoxysilane (HDFTES), and are shown below.
      Notice the “fluoro” part? That refers to the element fluorine (F). The paper you reference shows in Fig. 1 that indeed there is F in their material, as FTIR detects C-F bonds.
      There is no F anywhere in Harrit et al.

      “If you look at the spectrograph [fig7] of the Harrit paper you will see all of these elements in the quantities that you expect from nanothermite as desribed by the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories.”
      No.
      This LLNL material is described as having a molar ratio of Fe:Si of 3:1 to 5:1. Now, for this to be a thermitic material, each Fe atom needs to be paired with one Al atom, to conform to the reaction formula:
      Fe2O3 + 2 Al -> Al2O3 + 2 Fe
      So Fe:Al = 1:1, and it follows that Al:Si = 3:1 to 5:1.
      BUT Fig. 7 clearly shows that Al:Si is very nearly 1:1.
      The red material of the chips cannot be the stuff that the LLNL team synthesized in that paper Because the quantities are different.

      “And if you look at figure 26 and 27, you will see that that iron spheres found in the dust have way more than 1% Silicon; more like 25%.”
      This is a bit irrelevant to your or my argument at this point, but please be careful: You must not look at the peak height in an XEDS spectrum and assume they are directly proportional to relative amounts. If you created a hypothetical material that has, by mass proportions, 20% each of C, O, Al, Si and Fe, then the Al and Si peaks would be four to five times as high as the Fe- and O-peaks, and C would merely be a tiny blip. Fig 26 and 27 are actually more consistent with about 5% Si (and half as much Al, and more Ca than Al).

      “The spontaneous nanothermite theory is a cartoon. For this to happen, Iron Oxide would have to pulverized to the nanoscale, Aluminum would also have to be pulverized to the nanoscale but kept away from oxygen somehow”
      Again, you are right that the “spontaneous” theory is nonsense, but there is a well-known process that pulverizes iron oxide to the nano-scale: Milling to produce pigment. The 100 nm iron oxide grains are ordinary red paint pigments.
      There is also a well-known process that gives you Al-Si-rich platelets on the nanoscale: Mining of kaolin clay and calcination of it.

      “large amounts of alkylsilanes would have to magically appear out of nowhere”
      The data presented by Harrit et al is not consistent with alkylsilanes. It is conistent with iron oxide and kaolin pigments in an organic matrix.

      “and these three component would have to magically fuse and polymerize without incorporating any gypsum or concrete powder”
      There is no magic involved in painting steel components. Several processes are available.

    2. Lars van Pilsum you are putting words into my mouth, I never said the dust is thermite. The residue in the dust has aluminum and rust oxide known as “iron”.

      Just to make it clear, I don’t believe thermite was used. One big reason is there wasn’t any blinding light coming from every floor as it was coming apart.

    3. Lars van Pilsum you said….. “If Roger Gloux wants to continue making the claim that this is somehow possible, he needs to provide a better explanation than merely innuendo. This is a physical impossibility as far as I can tell, and I am sure that 99.9% of chemists would agree.”

      First of all, I never said nor alluded to the materials in the dust had anything to do with nanothermite or that it could be used as nanothermite.

      But I did say as Mr. Fetzer said, the vast majority of the buildings were turned into powder and dust and did so from the top going down. Mr. Fetzer thinks it was done with “nukes” whereas A&E 9/11 and McKee say is was done by controlled demolition using both thermite and other explosives. And Harritt claims it was just thermite because of what is found in the dust.

      So get your stories straight and don’t put words in my mouth. I never said anything as to what was used to destroy the buildings. I merely pointed out what was happening but not how it happened. I also produced pictures to make sure people like you can see what I was saying.

  35. Might I just weigh in with my two cents.

    This, right here in these comments, is EXACTLY what the perps want to happen. How the towers came down, thermite was involved/weren’t involved, nukes were involved/nukes weren’t involved. All this disagreeing, argueing amongst ourselves and questioning the motives of AE911truth is exactly what they want to happen. Yes we want the truth and cannot allow the perps to get away with it…

    Ladies and gentlemen.

    Might we all agree on this:

    The governments official story is a lie.

    We know that.

    All this divide is no good. The trolls and disinfo agents are easily spotted and irrelevant, forget them.
    Let us unite!

  36. StabbingWestwards that’s an excellent idea, but it is much like religion, everyone belongs to one “perception” and can’t leave it. Most everyone here has a perception or “doctrine” they believe in and regardless what someone else says regarding the topic, they will never change because they are loyal to the “doctrine”.

    The administrator belongs to the biggest “religious” group. This group is loaded with very influential people who are “priests” that are educated in a certain “field”, namely construction and supposedly understand what happened on 9/11, yet have no education regarding the destruction of buildings on a grande scale. Just because a group is big, does not mean it is right with their “doctrines” . There are a lot of BIG religious groups who disagree because of doctrine, yet supposedly get all their information from one text book.The administrator is trying to allow other “doctrines”, to appear being fair minded, all the while being loyal to the main group who believe the buildings were destroyed mainly by “thermite” and some other explosives, regardless the fact there is virtually no burning flashes throughout the buildings. You don’t have to have a higher education to see there isn’t any blinding burning flashes of light on every floor that turned to powder and dust. One corner has molten metal dropping, yet none of the other 110 corners on every floor doesn’t have molten metal dripping down to the ground.

    Fetzer leads the charge with the “nuke” doctrine and is like a “High Priest” educated in a particular seminary, who understands the buildings came apart and was mostly turned to dust though the “religious beliefs” of the big group doesn’t agree the buildings were mostly turned to dust.. Again, what is lacking in this perception is the blinding flashes made by “nukes” on every floor and also high radiation. Considering there is a large contingency of first responders getting sick and dying because of having worked in the destruction site, The supposition is it was radiation, yet all the while others were not affected. Can radiation be selective? If that is the case, these folks need to go to Fukashima and help out in getting that place under control. Radiation is not selective.

    What seems to be happening is the buildings were destroyed by perpetrators that had/have a lot of power and control. What everyone is doing is trying to figure out what exactly was used to destroy.

    Considering there are so many perceptions, means we are not focusing on the evidence but rather picking something, regardless it is a square thing and try and jamb it into a round hole.

    For example, we all heard the explosions before the buildings came apart, one killing McIlvaine. This explosion was strong enough to knock the marble off of the walls in the Lobby and shatter the glass into projectiles that cut McIlvaine like shrapnel.

    One question…. why would the “perps” blow the supporting basement columns when they knew the building was going to be destroyed from the top….. down? They knew how it was going to be destroyed so why blow the basement? There definitely was an explosion near the lobby, but what did it? What would cause the burns on McIlvaine’s body but not burn the lobby?

    Who in this Forum can say without any reservations, …..the lobby…. was damaged caused by thermite or dynamite or nitro or a nuke or some similar explosives and have the proof it was so?

    1. AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11: COMPLIMENTS OF THE CIA, THE NEO-CONS IN THE DOD AND THE MOSSAD (2016) has fifteen contributors (many with Ph.D.s), runs 458 pages and features 338 photographs. All my work on conspiracies is collaborative, but no one pays any attention to our research in advancing attacks based upon speculation, rumor and guesses.

      The explosions in the subbasements were done to drain water from the sprinkler systems, which otherwise would have extinguished the modest fires that remained after the spectacular fireballs had been extinguished in the first 15-20 seconds. The “hits” were to be used to explain them.
      Why not actually look at the evidence we have presented and our arguments based upon it?

      1. James Henry Fetzer I can see you are passionate in your views, how do you know it was to drain the sprinkler system?

        Water is pumped up floor by floor or section by section and held in holding tanks on a mechanical floor, with a one way valve to prevent water going back down. You cant pump straight up to the top because the pressure would blow the lines so it is done in stages. If you want to drain the tanks you would do it manually, each section at one time. Blowing something up in the basement doesn’t mean it was to drain the water.

        A lady was standing in the gaping hole where the big explosion had occurred so there wasn’t any threat by fire there. She was waving her white jacket. Her name is Edna Clinton. It’s said she got out and survived…

        There are other things in the basement such as electrical mechanical section having big transformers with oil in them that can explode if there is something shorting out. A crow can touch it’s wings on a line and the fuse on a pole and it causes a big explosion. So whatever it was that explode in the basement could be anything mechanical going bad due to what was happening in the building. A water main coming in from outside could break in an explosion flooding the basement. There are mechanical floors in those big buildings and you can bet and win they have valves to stop the water from draining out in the event some guy drove a forklift or power-jack into a main pipe.

        The maintenance guy famous for all his interviews said the explosion was below where he was with fourteen other people. The guy with his skin hanging from his arms was just one floor below him. So it is apparent this explosion didn’t go up to the main floor because it didn’t hurt those fourteen people.

        As for the evidence, it seems every group has a different set of what they call “evidence”. Some of it is guesses.

        McIlvaine was killed by concussion and glass shrapnel caused by an explosion. We shouldn’t guess at what caused this explosion.

        1. Willie Rodriguez, who was the Senior Custodian in the North Tower, gave a presentation on 9/11 here in Madison years ago. While we were having dinner after he spoke, he described to me how the subbasements filled with water after the explosions. They would have had to do that to avoid the sprinkler systems extinguishing the very modest fires that remained after the spectacle fireballs consumed the pre-positioned jet fuel/napalm to create the false impression that real planes had actually hit the towers. I have explained this many times. I would have though you would know. But then again, some will comment without reviewing the evidence.

          1. Mr. Fetzer the basement was filling with water after the explosion and your guessing this was for the purpose of draining the fire sprinklers. There were water tanks all the way to the top with one way valves, how do you figure the explosion in the basement was to prevent the water sprinklers from working,especially because of the modest fires? What difference does it make for the water sprinklers working or not. Are you trying to say the sprinkler system would stop the destruction of the building?????

            I know what you said before and are still saying it, but it just doesn’t make sense.

            From your perspective it was “nukes” that destroyed the buildings, and somehow the sprinkler system on a few floors would stop the destruction?????? The sprinkler system is attached to the T-bar false ceiling grid, and the heads that spray out the water are heat sensitive. The vast majority of the building was vacant.

            If a tenant was to lease a floor, they would hire a firm that make offices and carpet the bare floors, put in partitions and the T-bar grid. The building didn’t have the sprinkler system hooked up because the floors were vacant. It was wide open space. I used to do that for a living in high rise office buildings back in the seventies. Once the T-bar grid is in place, the “tin bashers” hook up the heat pipes and the plumbers put in the sprinkler system, then the electricians put in the lights and then the tiles are put in place.

            The only place there could be “modest fires” is on floors that were occupied with office furniture, with the sprinkler system operating. Otherwise there isn’t anything to burn. Steel studs and drywall don’t burn. Neither does fireproof ceiling tiles.

            Whatever caused the big fireball explosion that burned for only a few seconds wasn’t burning when Edna Cintron was waving her white jacket in the hole made by the explosion. If there is nothing to burn, there isn’t any fire.

            So….. we are back to the building being destroyed and your evidence doesn’t make sense, even though you are a Professor.

            Whatever caused the explosion that killed McIlvain, was because of the same method that caused the buildings to be destroyed.

            You also mentioned the big “potholes” around the destruction site and say nuclear explosions did that. How does an eight story building have the inside portion blow up and still leave the outside walls still intact? The Lobby steel was leaning on this building. The “nuke” thing just doesn’t fit.

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