Debunking William Rodriguez

“Truthers” often use the accounts given by William Rodriguez to “prove” their assertions that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition. However, the problem with that, as we see here, is that William Rodriguez has changed his story more times than most people change their underwear.

            This quote from here  “Truth” Movements position:  “William Rodriguez says he heard an explosion at the WTC “just seconds before” the plane hit.

Declared a hero for saving numerous lives at Ground Zero, he was the janitor on duty the morning of 9/11 that heard and felt explosions rock the basement sub-levels of the north tower just seconds before the jetliner struck the top floors.

He not only claims he felt explosions coming from below the first sub-level while working in the basement, he says the walls were cracking around him and he pulled a man to safety by the name of Felipe David, who was severely burned from the basement explosions.”

            9/11myths.com  poses some excellent questions:  1) Why plant a bomb 90 floors below the impact point and have it go off at the impact point?  (And how would they account for the possibility of the plane departing later than scheduled?), 2) Why increase the risk of detection, as planting a bomb there would do?

            The 9/11 “Truth” Movement might make the statement that it would weaken the structure, but as 9/11myths.com  points out, as the planes hit approximately 90 floors ABOVE the basement, meaning a bomb in the basement would have no effect, and furthermore, the base of the WTC was still intact.

            This quote from here  gives Rodriguez’s 1st account: “William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building.

“We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture,” Rodriguez said. “And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off.”

            Hmm, last time I checked, explosives did NOT make rumbling sounds-  they make a short, sharp BOOM.  Notice that he also mentions a man came out of the elevator with his skin all his skin off.  This implies a FIRE, not a bomb.  Bombs do NOT set people on fire;  they blow people to bits.  In addition, as we see near the bottom of the page here, a fireball took out a bank of elevators ( which means we don’t know where the elevator originally was before Rodriguez saw the man with his skin burned off exit the elevator in the basement. It seems to me that if the elevator was up high enough when the fireball took it out, then it may have been a bit loud when it hit the basement.

            Check out all the yellow boxes here  and you will see how Rodriguez contradicts himself, especially when he claims the media, specifically CNN, edited his interview.  The problem is it was a LIVE interview, meaning it CAN’T BE EDITED!!! 9/11myths.com further points out that Rodriguez fails to mention the 14 other witnesses he claims saw evidence of controlled demolition and in his RICO suit against the Bush Administration, leaves out the explosion he says preceded the impact?  Hmm, that’s just a tad suspicious.

            911myths.com  also raises another excellent point:  Just how can Rodriguez hear explosions at the uppermost floors when he’s in the basement?

            As we see here, the 9/11 ‘Truth” Movement  claims there was only one elevator that serviced all floors.  Once again, the 9/11 “Truth” Movement is being less than truthful, to put it mildly.

            First of all, car 6 ran a good portion of the full length of the building. Second, the elevator shaft is not the only route for the jet fuel to flow. Third, the WTC used what is referred to as a “stacked” system, meaning that while most of the elevators only went to a portion of the floor, the elevator shaft itself ran the ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING.  In short, you had multiple elevators using the same shaft ( reference )

            Simply put, despite their names,  you can trust Michael Vick to watch your dog before you can trust the 9/11 “Truth” Movement, the “Scholars” for 9/11Truth, AE911Truth, etc  to tell anything even remotely resembling the truth.

Absolute Proof No Controlled Demolition at WTC

     Once again, I have more REAL facts about the WTC collapse, proving there was NO CONTROLLED DEMOLITION WHATSOEVER on 9/11/01, provided by FHK reader Jack Stone.

     We’ll start with the North Tower.

     As we see here, Marc Morial, President and CEO of the National Urban League recalls hearing an “ eerie creaking sound” right before WTC 1 fell.  Hint to 9/11 “Truth” Movement:  Explosives do NOT make creaking sounds; they make a BOOM.  No boom = no explosives.

     Here is a timeline provided by this site: A FDNY Chief Officer feels WTC 1 move and decides the building is unsafe at 9:30 am, at 9:49 am, NYPD helicopters reported “large pieces” falling from WTC 2, at 10:07, NYPD aviation units state that WTC 1 may collapse ( the concave “bowing” of the steel columns, also proof that there were no explosives, was observed at 10:06 am) and at 10:20 am, said NYPD aviation units reported that WTC 1 was leaning to the south.

     Notice that this occurred over a period of FIFTY MINUTES ( and about 1 and 1/2 hours AFTER the planes hit).  Since when is fifty minutes  ( or 1 1/2 hours, for that matter) sudden? Again, this event was gradual; explosives are instantaneous.

     Architect Bob Shelton, who was IN the North Tower, heard the building making the same cracking noise that spaghetti noodles make when you break them in half before boiling them, and stated that it was a clear indication of structural failure (reference ).

     Here’s a quote from FDNY Firefighter Richard Banaciski, who was OUTSIDE WTC 1, found here: “So I was kind of looking around over there, up and down West Street and looking on Vesey and I just remember there was a police officer standing there and he just started saying, it’s starting to lean, it’s starting to lean. I remember looking up, looking at the second building and just seeing it starting to move.”

     FDNY Lieutenant Robert Bohack heard what he described as a “groan, like steel twisting,” just before WTC 1 came down (source ).  Again, explosives make a BOOM, that’s why they’re called explosives; they do NOT make a groaning sound.

 

     Let’s move on to the South Tower, which has similar but fewer accounts (reference ).

     This quote from here  shows the truth: “FDNY Battalion Chief Steve Grabher: ‘There was – somebody was insinuating that there had been a structural collapse and this is probably’ 15 to 30, 15 to 20 seconds before the building came down. I was hearing this. There was some collapse.” Considering the raging fires, it’s not inconceivable that the structural failure resulted in the interior collapsing first, then the outside- oh, and if you’ll notice the timing in the above quote, you’ll see that that is actually well BELOW freefall speed.

     Tommy Castaldi reported that the building was “swaying and shaking” and Jaede Barg stated that they heard the “sound of twisting metal” each time the building swayed (source ).

 

     Stanley Praimnath & Brian Clark described the sounds from WTC 2 before its collapse as “being like steel bending and creaking.” (source ). Again, a clear indication that there were NO explosives.

     Now, before some “truther” points out that Clark said, “ And we heard this boom, boom, boom, “ ( reference), remember one tiny little detail: Each floor of both of the Twin Towers had an area of  4,300,000 ft² each- the 4,300,000 square-ft area is the total area of all 110  floors combined ( reference ).  So, divide the total area by 110, and you have an area about of 39,091 ft ² (before some “truther” makes the obvious statement that the actual calculation is 39,090.9 square ft, it’s called rounding), which is just shy of an acre (go here  to obtain conversion).  One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to know that an acre of concrete slamming into the floor below it is probably going to be just a tad on the loud side.

FAA originally treated Flight 77 as Crash

     Once again thanks to FHK reader Jack Stone, here is yet another fact “truthers” won’t like. 

     As we see here, was originally treated as a CRASH, NOT a hijacking and this was BEFORE it hit the Pentagon.

     This site provides a timeline on pages 27 and 28. 

     Now, here is the timeline, located here.

     At about 20 minutes to 9 am ( all times are Eastern time), Flight 77 was going over West Virginia, and was handed to Indianapolis traffic control, who instructed Flight 77 to climb from 17,000 ft to 35,000 ft, and is believed to have reached 35,000 ft at about 8:54 am ( source ).

     At 8:50 am, the last communication between Flight 77 and Indianapolis occurred, which was a routine communication, acknowledged by Flight 77 (reference).

     Here is what occurred from 8:54 am to 8:56 am: 1) Flight 77 makes an unauthorized left turn, and drops SHARPLY from 35,000 ft, 2) The radar image and transponder for Flight 77 cut out SIMULTANEOUSLY, and 3) Flight77 disappears from the radar at the EXACT same time that the transponder cuts out, plus there was no radio contact ( source ).

     Now, if the air traffic controllers see a plane drop sharply, then suddenly lose the radar image and the transponder signal at the same time, of course they’ll think the plane crashed.

     Before any “truther” claims this is a lie, remember this was all RECORDED (source).

     In point of fact, nobody notified the FAA of a possible hijack of Flight 77 because Indianapolis ATC thought it had crashed and asked Search and Rescue and the West Virginia State police to look for a CRASHED aircraft, not to mention the fact that Flight 77 was going the in exactly the opposite direction that it was supposed to be going, meaning everyone was looking in the wrong place and the FAA HQ was informed of a possible crash at 9:24 am ( source ).

     The thing is, nobody found Flight 77 on radar again until between 9:25 am and 9:30 am, which is when Dulles Airport heading east at a high rate of speed with no transponder signal. At 9:33 am, Dulles informs both the White House and Reagan National Airport, the latter of which is closer to the city. 5 minutes later, at 9:38 am, Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon, a warning of only 5 minutes (source ).  5 minutes is hardly enough warning, unless of course “truthers” expect the buildings to suddenly jump out of the way- which wouldn’t surprise me considering the “truther” reliance on Warner Brother cartoon physics.

     Furthermore, NORAD was looking for Flight 11 north of DC (unaware that Flight 11 had hit one of the Twin Towers almost an hour earlier) because of the misinformation from the FAA (source )

     Just as an FYI for “truthers,” that does NOT prove a conspiracy.  Remember the Twin Towers had already been hit, so there was already a lot of confusion when Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.  Confusion is typical in a disaster.

Pictures that prove “Truthers” are full of Male Bovine Droppings

     Once again, my thanks to FHK reader Jack Stone for pointing me in the direction of this Web site.

     The first picture at this link  shows us the wheel hub from Flight 77 at the Pentagon.  “Truthers” hate this photo because it proves they’re lying about no visible debris seen at the Pentagon. Furthermore, as we see here, Dylan Avery, producer of Loose Change, compares the wheel hub of a 757 to the landing gear (in the 1^st edition, anyway). Here’s a helpful hint:  The wheel hub is only PART of the landing gear.

            Internet Detectives  also provides a picture of the wheel hub from a 757 and a 757’s landing gear- oh, and they used the EXACT SAME PICTURES THAT AVERY USED!!!

     Dylan Avery also needs a math lesson, as the “logic” he uses to “prove” it was a military plane is that the landing gear had a larger radius to width ratio (source ). Any geometry book will tell you that ALL circular objects have a diameter that is double the radius.

     The 2^nd picture at this site  “truthers” hate is the one showing the debris from the towers, specifically the north tower, hitting WTC 7.  Conspiracy theorists claim that the fire and debris could not have reached WTC and caused severe damage.  However, as we see from the 2^nd picture at the aforementioned site, the debris cloud is, in point of fact, slamming into WTC 7, which is the brown building at the bottom-right hand corner.

      The 3^rd picture CT’s hate, found here, is the one showing WTC 6 was SEVERELY damaged.  

     The reason “ truthers” hate this one is because they claim WTC 6, which was between the towers and WTC 7- only had minimal damage. However, they clearly need to take a closer look at the 3^rd picture at this site: WTC 1 is on the middle- right, WTC 5 is on the top-middle, WTC 7 is slightly above the middle-left, and WTC 6 is between WTC 1 and 7.  Notice that the center of WTC 6 is gone, having collapsed.

     The 4^th and 5^th picture this site  provides are those of the SEVERE AND INTENSE fires that were clearly burning across a LARGE portion of the WTC.  You will note from said pictures that there is a lot of smoke and you can see the orange flames as well.

     The 6^th photo conspiracy nuts hate, found here, is that of the plume of smoke from the crash of Flight 93, taken by a Mrs. McClatchey from her front porch.  This site  further points out that “truthers” have harassed and threatened her, which is a typical tactic of those who know they’ve been caught lying but don’t want to admit it-  it also shows that “truthers” are nothing more than bullies, and therefore cowards. Oh, and before “truthers” claim that an engine was found 8 miles away from a nearby lake, as a History Channel special last August pointed out, those are the DRIVING DIRECTIONS from MapQuest.  Hint: PLANES DON’T USE ROADS- the actual distance between the lake and the crash site is only THREE miles.

     The 7^th photo that “truthers” hate, found at this site  is that of a seatbelt from Flight 93.   All the wreckage, which accounts for the WHOLE plane, with the exception of the black box, has been returned to the airlines, yet “truthers” claim all of the local residents airline workers, local police and emergency services, coroners, and air safety experts involved in the operation to recover the aircraft were in on it ( source ). Good luck getting that many people to maintain their silence-  you have a better chance of winning the lottery.

     Picture number 8 that “truthers hate, from here, is the one of the sagging floors in WTC 2.  The increase of heat cause the steel to weaken-  notice, that’s weaken, NOT melt- resulting in the buckling of the towers, the bowing of columns, and the eventual collapse.  However, “truthers” still insist it was brought down by explosives, while ignoring the fact that, due to the chemical composition of explosives, there’s NO POSSIBLE WAY they could have survived the impact and fires ( source ). Before some “truther” brings up the thermite/thermate lie,  thermate/thermite is NOT an explosive, it’s an INCENDIARY.

            The 9^th photo that drives “truthers” nuts, located here  is that of workmen using cutting torches to cut up the beams AFTER THE COLLAPSE.  This is what “truthers” use in an effort to “prove” their “thermitic material” claim, while ignoring the fact that thermite is NEVER used in demolitions, only for cutting and welding ( source ).

     Last but not least, the 10^th photo “truthers hate, found at this site, is that of the debris OUT-PACING the collapse.

     “Truthers” often claim the towers fell at free-fall speeds or faster than free-fall speeds ( reference ).  Falling faster than free-fall, without assistance, is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. The only way the towers could have fallen faster than free-fall speeds is if rocket engines had been attached to them.

     Furthermore, as this site points out, since the debris is clearly falling FASTER than the collapse, the collapse occurred well under free-fall speeds.

“Truthers” need a check up from the neck up

Steel-Frame Buildings more susceptible to fire than “truthers” think

First, a sincere thanks to  FHK reader Jack Stone, who sent me this and a ton of other stuff to be used in the near future.           

Jack Stone sent me an article by William Sooy Smith  indicating that steel-frame buildings are far more susceptible to fire then “truthers” think.

As Smith points out, steel expands and contracts with a change of temperature, just like any other material as anyone who passed 3^rd grade physics would know (source ).

In point of fact, the Manhattan Savings Bank building was destroyed by the heat generated from a fire in the building NEXT DOOR (reference).

Smith further points out that no fireproofing is adequate when exposed to a hot fire, and said fireproofing must be airtight.  Otherwise, the heat can get in between the fireproofing and the steel, which creates a rather obvious problem (source).

This quote from Smith’s article  explains it quite nicely: “The rate of expansion or contraction of iron and steel, which are practically the same, is one one-hundredth of an inch per ft. for a change of temperature of 100º. If a vertical post or column of iron or steel is 150 feet in height, the total expansion for a change of 100º in temperature will be one and one-half inches; and for a change of 1,000º (to red heat), fifteen inches; and this change frequently occurs during a fire.

While a column changes its length fifteen inches, the integument of stone, brick, or tile expands or contracts much less, and so a “war to the death” takes place between the component part of what we call “steel buildings.”

There may be steel buildings in which the fireproofing has been so well done that they will pass through an ordinary fire without such failure. But if the steel becomes even moderately heated its stiffness will be measurably diminished, and the strength of the upright members so reduced as to cause them to bend and yield. This is more likely to occur, as the horizontal beams and girders will at the same time expand (unequally from the different degrees of temperature) and throw the posts out of vertical and into buckling positions. This is the third difficulty.

It is as if a man were required to stand upright and take upon his shoulders all he could stand under, then take a strong dose of physic and have his knees pushed from under him. “

Inflexible materials such as concrete or brick would simply crack, however, steel, being more flexible won’t crack, but it will still become weakened, hampering its ability to support the load (source).

Simply put, steel-frame buildings such as the WTC are, in fact, fire traps. 

Of course, “truthers” go by the motto of “If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.”  Goebbels would be proud of the “truthers.”

We will never forget…we will never surrender.

 

 

Mainstream Media Fails Again

By and reprinted with the permission of Nancy Matthis at American Daughter

The mainstream media made no mention of the controversy surrounding Van Jones until AFTER he resigned. The usual suspects, who have shaped the news for years, — CBS, NBC, the Washington Post, and the New York Times — carried no news at all until the Jones affair was over.

Then they reported, briefly (trying to minimize the damage to Obama), that Jones had resigned as the result of a vicious right-wing smear campaign. That is a very biased way to characterize an exposé consisting entirely of video clips of the man’s own speeches. How do you smear someone by quoting his very words?

The bloggers, the radio and cable television talk shows, and the social networks were the only sources of information. Yet it was sufficient to inform the public, who raised an outcry that brought results.

It would seem that the mainstream media is no longer necessary. More than that, it is pretty obvious that they are not doing their jobs. So we will not feel sorry for them when they whine about declining subscription numbers.

At the Washington Examiner, Byron York asks — Why did the press ignore the Van Jones scandal?:

Certainly there’s bias involved. Given what we know from the formal and informal polling of journalists at mainstream organizations, most of the people involved in political reporting are liberals, and likely Democrats. They want the Obama administration to succeed….

There was a day, not too long ago, when … influential news organizations could kill a story … simply by ignoring it. Sometimes they still try. But it just won’t work anymore.

The erstwhile media moguls are not taking their downfall gracefully. At Townhall, David Limbaugh notes The Mainstream Media’s Temper Tantrum:

With the resignation of green czar Van Jones despite their efforts to protect him, the mainstream media have finally been reduced to sputtering incoherence, as they’ve observed the un-deification of their anointed messiah and experienced firsthand their own diminishing relevance.

The MSM are engaging in a colossal temper tantrum over their lost news monopoly — a monopoly they forfeited through their bias, arrogance and self-imposed insulation….

This is an especially hard pill for them to swallow considering that during the past year, they’ve been stewing in the intoxicating delusion that they were again supreme, as they appeared to be getting away with their conspiratorial enthroning of King Barack Obama. And they’re not handling rejection well.

If you have time, read the rest of Limbaugh’s piece. He details the arrogant and self-serving remarks made by the media dinosaurs in the aftermath — a sorry lot they are and it is so heartwarming to see them squirm. It puts one in mind of that famous remark:

“You couldn’t have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of checks and balances [in the mainstream media] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.”

It is a stark contrast indeed. Just not the way that he meant it.

 

Exposing AE911Truth Lies 4

     Okay, it’s time to explain once again why Richard Gage and AE911Truth are not credible.

      Go to this site, scroll down to the paragraph ( about ¼ of the way down) that starts, “ In a very interesting statement,” and click on the words “very interesting statement,” and you will see a two-hour video where Richard Gage makes a complete horse’s rear end of himself.

     As the aforementioned link  points out, at about 1 hour and 5 minutes into the video Gage provides us with this gem of a quote: “Gage: Well that’s why they would have used thermite, which is a more silent, um, thermate, which is a special form of thermite with added sulfur, because obviously you wouldn’t want a whole bunch of explosions to be heard, even though they were, it’s not a perfect science. They have a hundred and eighteen witnesses just from those who were recorded in the oral histories.”

     There are  problems, all of which 911guide.googlepages  addresses: 1: Thermite and thermate, which are essentially variations of the same thing are NOT explosives, they’re INCENDIARIES. Hint: Incendiaries DON’T EXPLODE!  Thermite or thermate, being incendiaries, don’t explode.

     Refer to this video here, where they destroy a car using thermite. If you listen carefully, you’ll notice that the thermite makes a sort of crackling sound.  Oh, and before any “truther” points out that there was an explosion at the end of the video, I suggest you watch the video more closely, particularly where they state that they placed the second pot of thermite by the car’s fuel tank.  Thermite, being an incendiary, burns, as you noticed from the pyrotechnic effects and the explosion was a result of the heat from the thermite interacting with the gas.  It’s basic physics: fire plus gasoline equals explosion, although it would be more accurate to say the thermite was interacting with the fumes from the gasoline.  After all, anyone who’s managed to pass 3^rd grade science knows that it’s not the gasoline that ignites, it’s the FUMES,  and 2: As for the silent explosions, you’ll notice Gage contradicts himself as silent explosions CANNOT BE HEARD.  That and there’s no such thing as a silent explosion. Encyclopedia.com  states  “An explosion is a sudden release of physical or chemical energy, carried on a high-pressure wave, and generally accompanied by an emission of heat, light, and sound,”  which is very similar to what happens in a thunderstorm.  As we see from this Scientific American article  in a thunderstorm, the lightning superheats the surrounding air, which then cools, and the result of this rapid heating and cooling of the air by lightning is thunder. In short the only way you’re going to get a silent explosion is in a vacuum and there’s no vacuum on Earth ( except between the ears of the “truthers”).

     This site  also shows that Gage exposes his ignorance at just over 40 minutes into the interview mentioned at the beginning of this article with this quote: “80.000 tons of intact, cold structural steel designed to resist exactly that load, having done that for the last 30 years, and the life-span of this building for the next 50, free-fall speed virtually..”

     While that is true, what Gage forgets is that the 80,000 tons steel in the World Trade Center was designed to resist the STATIC LOAD. What we had on 9/11/01 was a DYNAMIC LOAD ( source). There’s a difference.

     This site  provides us with the definitions of a static and dynamic load, respectively: “Static Load: A nonvarying load; the basal pressure exerted by the weight of a mass at rest. Also known as dead load, and “Dynamic Load: A force exerted by a moving body on a resisting member, usually in a relatively short time interval. Also known as energy load.”  Hint: Static loads DON’T MOVE! It seems to me that as an architect, Gage ought to KNOW that.

     As for Gage’s cardboard box demonstration, here are several obvious problems: 1) dropping one cardboard box onto another is NOT the same as slamming a fully-fueled airplane into a steel-framed building.  For one thing, the distance he dropped the small cardboard box onto the larger one was extremely small- it was already practically on top of it, 2) a cardboard box  is just a tad lighter than 80,000 tons of steel, and 3), as Mark Roberts, the host of 911guidegooglepages points out at 26 minutes into this video  that the lower portion of the buildings ( referring to the Twin Towers) were absorbing the equivalent of around 48 tons of TNT.

     Oh, and one more thing, since “truthers” often use the fact that the Pentagon did not collapse completely while WTC 1, 2 and 7 did to “prove” controlled demolition, let me remind you again that the Pentagon and the WTC were made out of different materials. Specifically, the WTC was made of lighter materials than the Pentagon, the latter of which was primarily reinforced concrete.  Hint: Different materials will react to the same thing differently.  Don’t believe me?  Try this:  Throw a baseball as hard as you can at a brick wall and see what happens.  The baseball will simply bounce of the brick wall.  Now take that same baseball, and throw it with the exact same amount of force at your average window- the window will probably break.

     Once again, we see that AE911Truth needs a physics lesson something fierce.

April ‘09 Thermite Paper Not Peer-reviewed; Published in Journal with Questionable Reputation

Hat tip to Ryan Mackey for directing my attention to the Bentham Online paper

In April of this year, there was a paper titled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Vol. 2, also known as BenthamOnline. The authors, Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen- as well as “truthers” in general-claim it was peer-reviewed.  However, this could not be farther from the truth.

Generally, speaking, a properly peer-reviewed paper goes through following process:

1. The authors send the manuscript to the editor,
2. The editor sends it out to knowledgeable people in that area of expertise, for comment- and those experts are supposed to remain anonymous,
3. The paper gets sent back to the editor with any comments, and
4. If the paper is considered acceptable, it goes back to the original author or authors for revision before being published.

Bentham Online is known for being very careless with its peer-review process. As we see source). Hmm, the authors of the above paper are claiming nanothermite, yet they went around the editor in chief, who happens to specialize in nanomaterials.  I wonder why?            

Screwloosechange also provides this quote from professor Pilenii:

“I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.”

Oh, and one other thing - Neils Harrit, one of the authors, knows the names of the two people who reviewed the article, which is a clear violation of the peer-review process as he’s NOT supposed to know that information (source ).

As we see here, although Jones had two articles, Fourteen Points…[Bentham] and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials [SpringerLink] published in supposedly mainstream journals, those journal’s are about as mainstream as the New York Times is conservative- and Jones has been criticized for using Bentham.

This quote from here  is rather interesting, to say the least:

“Mr. Ryan Mackey has contacted the editors of both of these journals, noting that the papers offer no hypothesis, no new data, and no new analysis; that they ignore previously published and reviewed works that would readily clear up their confusion, were they aware of and competent in understanding them; that their papers lack proper citations and references, and are inherently unrepeatable.

The responses he has received from these publications are very revealing. Here is a summary from Mr. Mackey: 

“Officials at both publications have suggested I submit a response paper. At any other journal, this suggestion would be total madness — one does not ordinarily submit a journal paper entitled something along the lines of ‘Fourteen Editorial Anomalies of the Recent Paper by Jones et al.’ — yet that is exactly what these publications have suggested. However, since that also would involve my paying $700 cash (Bentham) or $3000 cash (The Environmentalist) to do so, I am not particularly surprised at their recommendation.”

Hmm, these journals sound more like tabloids to me- except that tabloids at least are honest about what they are.

Oh, and it may interest you to know that Bentham Online also accepted a computer-generated nonsense paper (reference). Clearly, Bentham Online’s peer-review process leaves much to be desired.

As I pointed out in one of my earliest articles, the thermite claim leaves much to be desired.

For one thing, Jones has been caught in a lie here. He states that a metal with low chromium and high manganese means it can’t be structural steel, when it was actually the other way around when the WTC was built (source).

Jones uses the presence of sulfur to “prove” thermite,” but there is another source for sulfur- the drywall for one. (source).

As we see here,  the chemical formula for drywall is CaSO₄ • 2H₂O, also known as calcium sulfate dehydrate.  Hint: Sulfate has sulfur in it- and it seems to me that two 110-story buildings and one 47-story building would contain a LOT of drywall.

There are other problems with the thermite claim too:

1. He got the sample from another “truther,” which is suspect right there,
2. the dust was sitting there for 9 days, giving it plenty of time to get contaminated,
3. it came from the home of a sculptor who might use welding equipment for his work (reference ).

This quote from here makes a rather good point:

“In his 2008 ‘Microspheres and Temperatures‘ paper Jones presented three different spectra of spherical particles (he has found even more spectra not mentioned in the paper). Jones’s thermite/thermate theory is effectively debunked by the great variety of spectra of iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust. This proves the spheres came from many different sources. If some of these sources were present before 9/11, e.g. in construction debris from welding and cutting operations, Jones needs to show us how he can distinguish between such particles and particles produced in the WTC fires.”

And this quote from the same site:

“Steven Jones also continues to ignore all the other, natural explanations for his findings, including:

• Pigments and fillers used in plastics
• Fly ash from the combustion of cellulose-based materials: wood, cardboard and paper
• Welding fume left in the towers from construction activities
• Wear particles from grinding and cutting during construction of the towers
• Iron powder cores from electronics (e.g. transformer cores)
• NYC background levels of particulate from general environmental sources 

Instead of considering any of these natural alternatives, he keeps insisting that he has found traces of thermite.”

One other problem as well – where are the unfired devices, remains of fired devices, large “pigs” of formerly molten iron, etc. – not to mention the fact that thermite burns COMPLETELY (reference).  Hint: That means it would NOT still be there even 24 hours later.

Finally, while I was unable to find anything about Daniel Farnsworth, or Bradley R. Larsen, here are the facts about the remaining authors of titled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe:” 

Steven Jones is a PHYSICIST, Neils Harrit is a CHEMIST (source ), Jeffrey Farrer – lab manager at physics and astronomy lab at BYU, specifically electron microscopy (reference) who recently quit the 9/11 “Truth” Movement as he was, in his own words, disturbed that it appeared to have a political viewpoint  (source ), Kevin R. Ryan, who was caught lying – he said Underwriter Labs certified steel when they do NOT do so – they certify the ASSEMBLY AFTER it has been put together. Oh, and Mr. Ryan was a WATER tester and was FIRED from UL (source ), and Frank M Legge works for Logical Systems Consulting in Perth, Australia (source), which is an Information Technology company, as I found out when Googling it, Gregg Roberts is a technical writer and business analyst (source), and James R. Gourley works for EPA (reference ).

In short, not a SINGLE one of the authors is credentialed in the field of structural or civil engineering.

 

Clearly, these particular “scientists” must have gotten their degree as the prize in a box of Crackerjacks.

 

Exposing AE911Truth Lies 3

Okay, it’s time to call AE911Truth on their lies again.

As we see here, conspiracy theorists use reports of molten metal to prove that thermite/thermate was used.       

The photos “truthers” use as “evidence” of controlled demolition is found at this site.  They use the bright, liquid flow from the south tower window and “molten steel” below Ground Zero. 

In the case of the flow from the south tower window, while that may indeed be molten metal, it’s not necessarily steel. It COULD be aluminum. The source of the aluminum, would, of course, be the airplanes (reference).

The last time I checked, aluminum was indeed a metal.

If you will refer to the periodic table below, you will notice it’s color coded. All the elements in green, yellow or orange (the column at the far right of the periodic table) are the nonmetals. The elements in purple that form sort of a “stair-step” are metalloids, meaning they have properties of both metals and nonmetals, and all of the remaining elements are metals.

 

Before “truthers” point out that molten aluminum looks nothing like what was flowing from the South Tower on 9/11 or refers me to either the video below, or  a Journalof911studies.com article by Wes Liffer, that indicates molten aluminum is silver in color, let me point out one little detail that conspiracy theorists ignore:  while generally speaking, molten aluminum is indeed silver in color, the aluminum seen in both the article and Youtube video is PURE aluminum.

 

 

The metal on 9/11/01 would have had all kinds of other stuff mixed in with the aluminum, and if you change the composition, the color will change. Oh, and if you will refer to this site, you will see that aircraft frames are made of an aluminum ALLOY.  Hint: An alloy is a MIXTURE of at least one metal and one or more other elements (source), meaning that even the aircraft frame is NOT pure aluminum.

Now, as I know some “truther” will attempt to point out that pure aluminum will not melt at those temperatures, remember two things:

1. That applies to PURE aluminum.  If you mix aluminum – or any other element – with another element, compound, etc., you WILL change the melting and/or freezing point.  That’s why they put salt on the roads in areas where it snows during the winter – the salt lowers the freezing/melting point (source).
2. As for the stuff from the south tower, “truthers” say that it was steel being cut by a cutter using thermite/thermate, never mind the fact that thermite/thermate does NOT explode (reference).

Furthermore, if you refer back to here (shown to the right – click image to enlarge), you will see a slide in black that AE911Truth uses – and which they got from the U.S. Geological Survey, taken on 9/16/01.  Note the temperatures on the black slide: 1160º F or 626º C for WTC 1, 1340º F or 726º C for WTC 7, and 1377º F or 747º C.

Go directly below that slide, and you’ll see two more slides (copy to the left, click image to enlarge), which this site got from here.

As you can see, the photo on the right, which was taken a week later indicates quite a bit of cooling.  That and there was a rainstorm on 9/20/01, which probably also helped cool things down, in addition to clearing some of the dust and debris (reference).

Finally, as we see here, they did not really start to fight the fires until 9/28/01, seventeen days AFTER 9/11/01 (Hint: This means the cooling had NOTHING to do with the firefighting efforts, as we see at above link). 

The reason they waited two weeks to start seriously fighting the fires is because, as per the instructions from city officials, the work at Ground Zero for those first two weeks was a rescue operation, clearly to allow for the possibility of survivors in the rubble. (source).       

As any potential survivors would have been trapped in the rubble, flooding the rubble with water would NOT be a good idea as that would have drowned any potential survivors (source ).

Running the risk of drowning any potential survivors that the firefighters were trying to rescue would have been counter-productive, to say the least.

Lies of AE911Truth Exposed 2

More research at this site exposes yet more lies by the Architects and Engineers for 911Truth ( AE911Truth):

Go about three-quarters of the way down the page here,  and you’ll see the claims made by David Chandler, who is a high school physics teacher, NOT an architect or engineer.

This site provides this quote from David Chandler from here: “NIST has now officially accepted that WTC7 came down with the acceleration of gravity, but they still couch it as a phase in a 5.4 second interval they claim matches the 5.4 seconds required for their model to collapse 18 floors.”

However, like most CT’s, Chandler is being dishonest. 

As we see here, WTC 7 did NOT come down with the acceleration of gravity ( i.e., freefall)-  in point of fact it took 40% longer to collapse than it would have at freefall speed.

Furthermore, NIST went into more- and better- detail as they have more precise equipment than Chandler, and , yes, they did find a period of 2.25 seconds where WTC 7 fell at freefall speeds ( Hint: 2.25 seconds does not the entire event make). However, what Chandler and the rest of the “truthers” won’t tell you is that in those 5.4 seconds of the roofline’s collapse, there is a period both before and after the 2.25 seconds where there is a period of SIGNIFICANT resistance-  and Chandlers OWN MEASUREMENTS show EXACTLY THE SAME THING ( reference) Hint: If, as Chandler and other “truthers” claim, the NIST is lying, and Chandlers own numbers match the NIST, then, logically, Chandler would have to be lying as well.

As for the controlled demolition theory, Richard Gage, founder of AE911Truth often quotes Danny Jowenko, a Dutch expert on controlled demolition to “prove” controlled demolition ( source).

While it is true that Jowenko says WTC 7 was a controlled demolition,  and Gage is not misquoting Jowenko on WTC 7, there is one tiny little detail Gage doesn’t want you to know: Jowenko believes, correctly, that the Twin Towers came down on their own ( source).

Furthermore, as we see here, Jowenko is first shown a video of Silversteins “pull it” statement, which, of course, would logically affect his view of the WTC 7 collapse, then this site provides the interview with Jowenko in 3 videos.

Of course, if you go to the 4^th video here, you’ll see the TRUTH about Silversteins “pull it” quote.

At about 25 seconds into the 4^th video ( the one that Gage did NOT show Jowenko and is actually the SAME PBS Special “Truthers” like to use when misquoting Silverstein), you here Silverstein saying he got a call from the FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMANDER ( source ).

At about 46 seconds, we see the details “truthers” leave out- pull it in demolition means pulling the building away from another one with cables, and this video ( which also happens to be the same one Alex Jones uses) shows the heavy construction equipment getting ready to pull WTC 6 down with cables ( source).

Scroll down a little farther here, and you’ll see that Jowenko is only given select information.

This quote from here tells the truth: “Jowenko is then shown a video of the building falling. There is no indication whether he is shown the complete collapse or a video starting at the favorite cut-in spot favored by Gage and similar conspiracy theorists.

He is also shown a simple drawing of the building’s placement of core columns. He is given no information about the cantilevered section to the north, or the crucial transfer trusses in the area of column 79.

Other bits of information are given to him here and there, and the interviewer appears to have pages of the FEMA report on WTC 7 on the table. Close to the end, he’s shown the FEMA estimate of column damage. But Jowenko basically refers to the video, the Silverstein quote, and the column drawing during the interview. He certainly has never seen the Final Report from NIST on WTC 7.

Experts who have examined much more evidence than that presented to Jowenko have concluded that 7 World Trade fell due to damage to its unusual structure by thermal expansion of structural elements.”

In short, despite it’s name, The Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth are about as interested in the truth as OJ is in finding the real killers.

Lies of AE911Truth Exposed 1

It is time to bring the lies of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 “Truth” (AE911Truth) to light.

First, as we see, here, AE911Truth claims that over 24,000 Architects and engineers came face to face with the truth.  However, as this site points out, if you go to AE911Truth’s own site, you’ll see they only added 50 new petitioners, and if you watch the videos from AE911Truth’s own Web site, you’ll see that only 4 of those 50 were architects or engineers.

As we see here, that means the actual percentage of Architects and Engineers that are members of AE911Truth is a whopping 0.000166%.

In addition, if you go a little further down the Web site here, you will see even more evidence of Ae911Truth’s deception.  The owner of this Web site (who I might add is, as we see here, by his OWN ADMISSION, a LIBERAL who, again, by his OWN ADMISSION, is more than willing to believe the worst of the Bush Administration.  However, unlike AE911Truth, the “Scholars” for 9/11 “Truth,” etc, he is, at least, an honest researcher) points out that a little further research shows that there’s a problem with the Architects and Engineers for 911Truth’s claim to have 640 architects and engineers asking for a new investigation.  In point of fact, that total of 640 includes architect and engineering students, as well as other people who work  in those offices ( Hint: People who work in those offices aren’t necessarily architects or engineers- they could be secretaries). In point of fact, when everyone except those with licenses and degrees is excluded, there are only 284 names, and that’s with a broad definition of engineer- there are landscape and electrical engineers on that list (source). Scroll further down this site, and you will see that AE911Truth is again using the Beijing skyscraper fire just last February to “prove” their point.        

AE911Truth states’ that the Beijing skyscraper was comparable in size to WTC 7, which is technically true, but this site points out some details that AE911Truth leaves out: 1) The skyscraper in question was REINFORCED CONCRETE and steel, much like the new WTC 7 will be- and concrete is far more resistant to fire than steel.  This site also makes an aside that the “truthers” who support a controlled demolition of the WTC use the Madrid Windsor fire and make a big deal out of the fact that it didn’t collapse, while ignoring the fact that the steel in the Madrid Windsor fire DID melt, and it’s the reinforced concrete that survived, 2) The Beijing skyscraper was built  by Arup AFTER conducting an EXTENSIVE study of the WTC collapses, and 3) The Beijing skyscraper was built to withstand major earthquakes.  If it’s built to withstand the huge earthquakes that often occur China ( and the Pacific Rim ( aka, the “Ring of Fire”) in general, how is fire going to bother it?

Oh, and one other detail: As I pointed out in a previous article, there are two other differences as well: 1) The Beijing fire was fought, and 2) Unlike WTC 1,2, and &, the Beijing skyscraper did NOT suffer SEVERE structural damage before catching fires.

When it comes to honesty, AE911Truth makes Bill Clinton look like a Boy Scout.

“Truthers” Display Their Ignorance

(Hat-tip to Jenn for pointing me in this direction)

If one wants to see a display of “truther” stupidity, one need only go here.

The first post at the above link  sends you to an LA Times picture of the CCTV fire in Beijing earlier this year.

However, as I pointed out in a previous article, there are a few details “truthers” leave out. The details they leave out is that, unlike WTC 7, the CCTV fire was fought (source), and the CCTV Tower in Beijing did NOT suffer SEVERE structural damage before catching fire, while TC 7 did (reference ).

The first post at said forum also repeats the freefall lie and says that there was a piddling fire in WTC 7, when, in point of fact, one of the firefighters, Hayden, said there was a (emphasis is mine) “HEAVY body of fire in there.” (source).

The fourth post here claims that all three buildings collapsed in a neat little pile. This is, of course, a lie. If you go here, you will see a diagram of the debris drop zone-as you can see, the zone covers about 2-3 square blocks. That’s a strange definition of a neat little pile.

I have also noticed that the 9-11 “Truth” Movement has often claimed thermite/thermate was used, while ignoring the fact that thermite/thermate is an INCINDIARY, NOT an explosive. There’s a difference. Furthermore, as I pointed out here, despite Steven Jones’ claim of finding uncommon elements indicating thermite/thermate use, there are plenty plausible of explanations for said elements that do not involve the use of thermite/thermate. After all, heat is a catalyst for many chemical reactions and we know the WTC was smoldering for quite some time. In point of fact, every single one of those elements can be accounted for as elements that are used in constructing a building (source source).

I have noticed that “truthers” have yet to explain how you’re going to get sufficient explosives to bring down two 110-story buildings and one 47-story building into said buildings without getting caught, when there are people there 24/7 (hint: it was called the WORLD Trade Center for a reason). Did the Starship Enterprise beam the explosives into the WTC?

While we’re at it, I noticed “truthers” didn’t have a problem with the official version when the WTC was bombed in 1993, the Khobar Towers bombing 1996, the Embassy bombings in 1998, or the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. So, if Bush is to blame for 9/11/01, who’s to blame for the bombings that occurred under the Clinton administration? Did Bush use a time-turner to go back in time and set those up? Oh, wait, this is real life, not a Harry Potter film.