Start A Petition

BuildingWhat? - Raise Awareness of Building 7 - TAKE ACTION!

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: 9/11 Truth, WTC controlled demolition )

- 3147 days ago -
Please stand with the 9/11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation. The ultimate goal of the "BuildingWhat?" campaign is to initiate a local investigation into the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7.


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Carole Sarcinello (338)
Friday December 10, 2010, 7:33 am

My personal thanks to John-Michael Talboo (J-M), who alerted me to this campaign.

This government has used 9/11 as justification for invasive wars which have cost American taxpayers in excess of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS (although we cannot get our Congress to support health care for 9/11 victims and their families) -- as well as the reasoning for stripping Americans of their rights under the guise of security from terrorism.


Carole Sarcinello (338)
Friday December 10, 2010, 7:35 am
J-M has devoted years of independent research to this topic.  For more information, please read the following (which is just one article of many at his blog, Debunking the Debunkers):
Building What? is up...

And according to Joseph Nobles, there's a lie on every page. I have just recently looked through the website myself, and while I admittedly have some differences with it, Mr. Nobles seems to think that almost everything on the site is either false or misleading. Mr. Nobles' responses to the evidence pages at Building What? are, as we will see, very misleading and false.
Free Fall Collapse
Mr. Nobles claims that NIST actually explained what caused the period of free fall in Building 7's collapse.
"NIST's modeling had already shown how this short-time period of virtual free fall could happen.  It occurred right after all remaining columns had buckled over an 8-floor span of Building 7.  NIST did not go on to explain how the free fall could have occurred because they already had."
It has been demonstrated several times why this explanation is complete nonsense. NIST merely implies that the alleged buckling of the floors caused the free fall, without offering any sort of analysis into exactly how the buckling caused it in the first place. Basically, we are being told that "NIST said 8 floors buckled, and it fell in free fall for 8 stories, so the buckling must have caused the free fall." That is a lot like saying "2 is a number. 1 is a number. Therefore, 2=1."
(See article for more.)

Past Member (0)
Friday December 10, 2010, 7:38 am
It is time for the truth about all of it. I am going to read it now. Thanks Just for this one.

CherAway C (1424)
Friday December 10, 2010, 7:38 am

Thnx so much for posting this sweetie!!!


Kit B (276)
Friday December 10, 2010, 7:57 am
When really horrible things happen and we have a government run or led investigation, I think it leaves the whole affair in doubt. We may never get a satisfactory answer on many things, but if we could feel the investigation was free of a political agenda, and a need to mollify some one other then investigators and detectives. We just might be more willing to accept reasonable if not complete answers. If Oswald acted alone, if Ruby acted alone, and if the investigation had been more open to the public, the conspiracy theories may still exist, but to a much lesser degree and with less timber for the fires. I think it is true with each major catastrophe, just begin with independent eyes, with only a mission to find the truth.

thank you, Carole

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Friday December 10, 2010, 8:06 am

Agreed, Kit!

What bothers me, more than anything, is the reluctance to respond to thousands of expert opinions questioning the "official" story. It's what prompts the natural next question: "What are they hiding?"

WTC7 has always been the nagging doubt that spurred my distrust. The building was not hit by a plane, and the government's explanations have been shot full of holes.

They, I'm sure, are hoping that -- with everything else going on -- people will just let it rest and forget about it. But, I don't agree. They have an obligation to the American public to respond to the request for an impartial investigation!


Angela Dubie (306)
Friday December 10, 2010, 8:09 am
It has become very evident to me that England took back America with the assassination of J.F.K.,but the only way to get it back constitutionally is for the national guard to seize the government and try each and every public servant for treason, and burry them at the twin towers site as a monument against hypocracy!

Jae A (316)
Friday December 10, 2010, 8:18 am
Yet the people let it go at the time,even with so much evidence that things weren't as they were being the powers that be at that time made sure that the building evidence itself was reduced to steel rubble and dust and drop off over seas as scrap metal and a calm silence fell over the land.......until...WE ARE AT WAR !..again.


Hans Mueller (591)
Friday December 10, 2010, 8:35 am
Donate to who?

2342 Shattuck Ave., Suite 189
Berkeley, CA 94704

Ah yes, a well known organization indeed and from the city of unbiased thinkers. Go Bears!

Jae A (316)
Friday December 10, 2010, 8:38 am
"What are they hiding".....A reminder :

Mad World

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Friday December 10, 2010, 8:46 am
GREAT (and totally appropriate) video, Jae!  Everyone should take the time to view (or re-view) it!
Mad World

patricia lasek (317)
Friday December 10, 2010, 8:47 am
Thanks for the post Carole.

Hans Mueller (591)
Friday December 10, 2010, 8:51 am
In response to FEMA's concerns, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was authorized to lead an investigation into the structural failure and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers and 7 World Trade Center] The investigation, led by Dr S. Shyam Sunder, drew not only upon in-house technical expertise, but also upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).]

Hmmm .... Suppose that these organizations were somehow implocated or perhaps brainwashed? Honor the memories of those lost.

Hans Mueller (591)
Friday December 10, 2010, 8:53 am

ChanTlalok Rain C (363)
Friday December 10, 2010, 9:03 am
Thanx Just Carole, Don't Know, you are too cool. Why havent' the White People revolted yet? I don't understand, if 9/11 points to Pres. Bush & Company, do the Bastards in. If they did this to a Big Reservation we would have went to War.

SuS NoMail Plez P (244)
Friday December 10, 2010, 9:08 am
Noted and forwarding my Passionate Warrior. I don't understand the Science, Physics,etc. about this obvious "Scam." What I believe to be a coverup. I can do the math without spending my time writing a thesis on this matter.. I have heard so much information and proof for years. HOW CAN YOU CHALLENGE PHYSICS?

"WTC7 has always been the nagging doubt that spurred my distrust. The building was not hit by a plane, and the government's explanations have been shot full of holes"~ Thank you *C*

Kit, I agree with your entire post.

I will not be doing much more than quoting others, as my brain is having difficulty and my posts do not refect what I mean to say.

This should truly NOT BE FORGOTTEN and should be reinvestigated exposing all involved. BRILLIANT reminder that we must speak up...regarding every issue that we have allowed to be swept under the rug for whatever reason.

Thank you sweetie.



Hans Mueller (591)
Friday December 10, 2010, 9:09 am
Well said Chan. Let;s go to war!

Alice C (1797)
Friday December 10, 2010, 9:19 am
Thank you for this post !

SuS NoMail Plez P (244)
Friday December 10, 2010, 9:20 am
I hope my post my sence.

Carole, TY for posting the link to MAD WORLD {ty Jae}. Although the music was LOVELY and definately a favorite, I am still crying after watching it. I feel all the pain that has happened since that day.

I think this was the result of why we have been in so many this day.

Rain...I agree the Americans {not just white people} ALL THE AMERICANS SHOULD REVOLT. Why haven't we?

SuS NoMail Plez P (244)
Friday December 10, 2010, 9:22 am
CORRECTION: I hope my post makes sence...sorry.

ChanTlalok Rain C (363)
Friday December 10, 2010, 9:50 am
SuSanne, ...All the Americans should revolt. Why haven't we?" You's is right why haven't you? Fear.
SuSanne baby, I don't consider myself American, I'am Apache & Aztec, living on my land, my ancestors land.
I will gladly fight this Government and the Mexican Government (European also) when I get the green light from my people. We know that we will be wiped out, but we are ready to join our ancestors in the "Happy Hunting Grounds". Were our Maidens go naked or semi-naked, were a Chief suggests, Rules are in our Hearts, we all live equally, etc., etc..

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Friday December 10, 2010, 10:26 am
More information from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
AE911Truth Delivers the Evidence to the Media: Press Conference - National Press Club – Washington DC
"This is the actual 10-minute statement read by Richard Gage, AIA, to the media at the AE911Truth press conference at the National Press Club in Washington DC on September 9, 2010."
One part of the statement that I found particularly interesting:
" engineers in charge of the government’s investigation would avoid dealing straightforwardly with ALL the evidence that AE911Truth and others have repeatedly brought to their attention, much of which has been available in the public record since the beginning. John Gross, NIST co-project leader, has denied the existence of – or even any reports of – molten iron or steel at the World Trade Center.
They stopped their analysis of the towers’ complete and highly energetic destruction at the very point when the destruction began. And they have dismissed or avoided serious analysis of the additional evidence with which we are concerned..."

Arielle S (313)
Friday December 10, 2010, 10:57 am
Far too many unanswered questions, far too much fear from the government, far too many suspicious circumstances. But can you just imagine how people would react if the truth did come out? Come to think of it, maybe that's just what we need...

Barbara W (342)
Friday December 10, 2010, 11:08 am
Dear Carole you deserve the Just with ice added to the just. You are a marvel and I am in solid agreement with this post offering..For the many years I have covered various issues that have concerned me when it comes to the way my government works or not! I am still looking to see justice in the Waco incident. So when 9/11 happened, I saw the first plane at the moment it hit and then, watched as the second plane made it's move..I was speechless but I had an eerie feeling that this was not what it would be painted to be. So much went wrong with that so called 9/11 investigation. We used the 9/11 horror to wage war with a nation who was not involved and then, thanks to a corporate media, the less then aware American was sold on this lie..

We heard the REPUGS and those in the Bush admin. call many of US un-American because we had the audacity to question the war with Iraq. It was such an ugly period that as I write this I find the anger welling up!

Now, as this post exposes, the name calling party of no way has a convenient memory lapse. They and their gr$$d soaked cronies already get what they were after but they are still foaming at the mouth for more and now, it's at the expense of those who they once called heroes.. It seems hypocrisy is the disease that goes hand and hand with the disease of insatiable gr$$d!

As a rule I pride myself on keeping a cool head. But there are two things that get me riled 1. Betrayal and 2. Someone, anyone, who would use blackmail to have their way with me or another! I do not hanker to being up against a wall.

You my dear Carole are a force that they should fear because you are tenacious and fair of mind! Whoever was behind 9/11 did the REPUGS and the Corporations a favor. Hummm! They have done what they are good at, run over anyone that got in their way, killed many innocent Iraqi Children, and, they had their own army of mercenaries, Blackwater!

I will move this far and wide since this is an issue which still demands major, in-depth,, unbiased answers as well as those who led us into an illegal war, must be tried for crimes against humanity. Their blatant BETRAYAL OF AMERICANS and others throughout the world demand JUSTICE! The victims of this pernicious treachery, many who have been killed, cry out!! Diamonds to you Carole.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Friday December 10, 2010, 11:18 am

OMG . . . I'm blushing (not easy for a Native American).

I thank you, Barbara, for being one of my friends whose intelligence and steadfast vigilance for truth and human rights cannot be silenced or deterred by non-believers, government self-serving propaganda, trolls or slackards.


Phyllis P (232)
Friday December 10, 2010, 11:19 am
The more we expose our government for the lying, covert operations that they are, the better off we will be.

Pat B (354)
Friday December 10, 2010, 11:21 am
Thank you Carole for this!! Passed this one on to other friends as well. This is very important and needs to go far and wide!!! Thank you again!! ;-) xox

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Friday December 10, 2010, 11:40 am

When Obama and the DOJ decided not to pursue charges against Bush-Cheney, I did NOT agree.

Increasingly, it's becoming transparent that "our" government does NOT speak for 98% of its citizens.

This is an issue that I will NEVER allow to be disregarded. It was the premise for thousands of U.S. lives being lost; Trillions of dollars being spent, unwarranted distrust of ALL people of the Muslim faith, the disregard of Constitutionally-protected rights of American citizens . . . and the list continues.

The American people have the RIGHT to ask questions -- and to DEMAND answers from the government THEY appointed and and pay to represent them.

Hans Mueller (591)
Friday December 10, 2010, 11:54 am
" engineers in charge of the government’s investigation "

Go no further. "Government's Investigation!

NIST (my comment above) released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest facade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south facade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior. A unique aspect of the design of 7 World Trade Center was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[4] In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds.

There are a lot more "facts" from "independent experts" in the field of structural engineering but to Hell with facts. Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes! Have pity in the feelings of the friends and family of those lost on 911! It's the holiday season for God's sake.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Friday December 10, 2010, 12:10 pm

Wow. That sounded like a page straight from the Congressional handbook:

"Let's not talk about negative things . . . like discontinuing unemployment payments; and DADT; and giving tax breaks to 2% of Americans; or responsibility for 9/11. It's the holiday season! Let's take a break!"

(shaking head)

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Friday December 10, 2010, 12:14 pm

Many families of victims of 9/11 are questioning these things as well. And many of them are also waiting (impatiently) for recognition of their questions.

During this holiday season, those they lost will be uppermost in their minds -- by their absence.

This quest for truth is for them, more than anyone!

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Friday December 10, 2010, 12:21 pm

In fact, with the high probability that Congress is now likely to convene --without depressing themselves by considering the issue of health care for 9/11 first responders and their families -- I'm sure the level of government holiday happiness will be the major concern and topic of conversation at the holiday dinners of families being bankrupted by shouldering the expenses of loved ones who rushed to save lives when the WTC buildings collapsed.


Hans Mueller (591)
Friday December 10, 2010, 12:25 pm
When confronted with the facts, change the subject (page 2379, Congressional Handbook). Now you are a smart cookie. How about some specifics on the contents of the NIST study?

Alim M (7)
Friday December 10, 2010, 12:31 pm
Watch "Zeitgeist"! And "The Arrivals", an incredible youtube series.

Sheryl G (359)
Friday December 10, 2010, 12:33 pm
Carole, thank you for keeping the pressure up to obtain further investigation. If there is nothing to hide, then there should not be a problem with this.

Hans Mueller (591)
Friday December 10, 2010, 12:37 pm
That's right, there should be no problem, except for the friends and families that need closure. Think about it.

Barbara W (342)
Friday December 10, 2010, 12:42 pm
December 10, 2010

Dear Bill de Blasio & Cyrus Vance Jr,

I am writing to ask that you do all that is in your power to open an investigation into the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001. Based on evidence brought to light by thousands of scientists, architects and engineers, I am deeply concerned that the report issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology fails to adequately explain how and why Building 7 collapsed as it did. I respectfully submit that as part of your duty to represent, serve and protect the people of New York City, it is your responsibility to help bring about a new investigation.

There are many unanswered questions. A dear friend, who served this nation well, made it clear to me that in my quest for truth I must "Assume Nothing! Question Everything" and, so I "Dare" find myself doing just that. I am not alone in my quest for 9/11 truth. It caused some of this nation legislators to spend billions on an illegal war. The latest economic disaster goes hand and hand with the crimes of the last 10 years.

American's, especially those who lost their lives in the Towers, or gave up their health and or lives as "FIRST RESPONDERS" cry out for justice

Even as I write this email those who led us with a smile on their face, into an illegal war, "Dare" deny much needed health care to the "FIRST RESPONDERS." Folks they once called "HEROES", when it suited them.

Courage and the quest for truth must take center stage if this land we say "We" love is to have an opportunity at a much needed healing! I pray that there's the courage needed to move forward with this request! Betrayal and blackmail does not lay well with proud American's!

Sincerely yours,

Barbara Williams
1200 N. Lamb # 126
LV NV. 89110

CC: The Bridge To
Dare To Dream
And other interested parties.

Past Member (0)
Friday December 10, 2010, 12:44 pm
noted and pretty disgusted...i have no idea about building 7...what i do know and have watched rather carefully is that conspiracy theorists want to grab any old hook they can to get some investigation going...i reviewed much of their junk science and the opinions of their "experts" which we are asked to believe when they offer no more proof than any other scientist...this is going to hang on like the kennedy assassinations ....forever...until recent technological advances offered more concrete to all the writings and reports...these are not fact based only opinions...people will believe what they are predisposed to believe...and all the while osama and his ilk are laughing all the way to their next bomb building activity.....i think we need to put all the conspiracy talks on with the problems we have...and yes we were attacked unless you want to believe that our government has hidden all the passengers on every plane and managed to keep them all quiet...our government who couldn't even conceal abuses in a prison in a war give it a rest....and no i didn't don't bother hollaring at me and making demands that i either believe this or support it...i don't and unless you have more than opinions to "prove" your point....i'll wait until we get the rest of the evidence...and i mean physical evidence...not opinions from either side....

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Friday December 10, 2010, 12:55 pm

The wonderful thing about freedom of speech is that ALL opinions can be voiced. Although I may disagree with some, I still rejoice in the fact that they can be published.

Thanks for all responses!

Hans Mueller (591)
Friday December 10, 2010, 1:01 pm
Not only a smart cookie but sweet!

Eternal G (734)
Friday December 10, 2010, 1:12 pm
Hear hear to all of the comments! No more exemptions for scrutiny of US-government bodies, time to take full responsibility for every action, internal as well as external! This moral and ethical mess cries out for an American and global revolution, enough is enough... by far!

Blast Dorrough (43)
Friday December 10, 2010, 1:23 pm
When the facts were revealed that the parasitical Bushies knew that commercial jetliners were going to be used as missles the incompetents failed to take any steps against such a possibility. They did not warn the travelling public about such a danger or threat. Had they done so travellers on those planes would have been alerted and taken appropriate action curtailing the 911 disaster to come. It amazed me how they shrilled themselves out of respeonsiblity for the catastrophy occurring on their watch. No doubt in my mind that such political reprobates saw the possibility of such a massacre as a "God send" to them to justify their already planned Christian Crusade into the Islamic domain based on invented facts and their lust for oil and riches. The GOP reprobastes have no honor nor morality. Everything they do from a position of power is political to meet a plundering end. Bush I realized that plunder of the Treasury through the CIA could be done without a trace of "following the money." Most plundering done today is done under the guise of the necessity of secrecy and all privatized to equally corrupt monied associates aiding and abetting in the theft of our Treasury. Palosi refused to accept any petitions for redress of the crimes of the Bushies, unlimitless crimes. That's why the political crimes go on and on because no one is ever held accountable at the top and near the top. All investigations of suspected theivry or foul play in government must start at the money trail. Government crooks are driven by their greed.

Past Member (0)
Friday December 10, 2010, 1:43 pm
Noted, thanks Carole. Maybe someday we will know the the distant future. Look how long it's taken to find out the truth about the JFK assassination, and it was uncovered largely by foreign investigators. And still the network stations continue to show programs on the idiotic single pristine bullet/lone shooter nonsense.

Gloria H (88)
Friday December 10, 2010, 2:16 pm
what I want to know is why the Senators voted against helping the 9/11 responders? Right there is something to ponder on. So quick to rush into a war, yet dragging their feet to help those who rushed into rubble and smoke. You know darn well THEY would be hiding under their desks if something happened where they worked. Ok to send the poor, the middle class to go through ruins, to get shot at overseas, but for them to lift a finger? NO WAY! Gutless cowards.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Friday December 10, 2010, 2:24 pm
Some of the above comments, made me want to examine a term too often used when describing grief . . . "closure."
Having experienced my own grief, as all humans of a certain age do, I wanted to examine the term with more sensitivity.
I offer the following:
Thoughts on Closure
"I don’t like the word closure, yet it is used a lot in relationship to grief, especially by TV and newspaper journalists: Students seek closure after a school shooting, or families want closure after the murders of their loved ones. The word comes from the Latin clausura meaning a finish or conclusion. I often wonder why media types insist on using it to describe grievers so soon after public tragedies.
The desire for closure can influence us on a personal level because grief disturbs people. It is very uncomfortable for some friends, co-workers, and even other family members, to be around sorrow. They want to fix us—and quickly—so we can wrap it up, bring grief to a conclusion and get back to our former selves. In our efforts to be considerate, we try to comply with this notion of closure and "snap out of it" because we don’t want to disrupt someone else’s day, or event, with our sadness.
The pressure to finish grief creates an added burden for us. Not only do we need to grieve, but we also need to grieve as fast as we can and move on. In other words, we need to find closure. But how do we put an ending on the permanent loss of the one we loved so much? The answer is we don’t.
There is, however, a type of closure that can give us some perspective on the loss and assist us in our healing. It can range from learning as much as possible about the details of a fatal accident to finding a way to say goodbye when there is no body. This perspective allows us to work through the what ifs and if onlys surrounding the death, and all the other questions or doubts that keep us awake at night. Please visit The Gift of Forgiveness for more on perspective.
Understanding the how and why by filling in the gaps allows us to begin mending our own broken hearts, but there will always be unfinished business. We can never finish everything because grief is not some type of defined work project with a specific date for completion"

Hans Mueller (591)
Friday December 10, 2010, 3:10 pm
"But how do we put an ending on the permanent loss of the one we loved so much? The answer is we don’t."

"There is, however, a type of closure that can give us some perspective on the loss and assist us in our healing. It can range from learning as much as possible about the details of a fatal accident "

So true, we don't put an ending to the loss of one. Some of those that grieve will continue to try and find reason for the loss. Others will reach a point where they only want the memory of the person. It just seems logical and prudent to delve into the findings that have been presented before opening up old wounds. What is wrong with first delving into the findings? Can anyone say that they have done so before summarily dismissing that which has already been presented?

Phillip I (67)
Friday December 10, 2010, 3:12 pm
Oooooooo - PLEASE let the real poop on 9/11 be one of the next Wiki-leaks - please, Please PLEASE!!!!!!

. (0)
Friday December 10, 2010, 3:36 pm
Hans says:

"In response to FEMA's concerns, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was authorized to lead an investigation into the structural failure and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers and 7 World Trade Center]"

Appendix C of the FEMA report that studied steel from Building 7 found "melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."

Appendix C states":
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event...

It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground... It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

NIST failed to conduct any study into this anomaly, let alone a detailed one, and here is why:

AE911Truth Engineer Does for Free what NIST Couldn’t for Millions

Hans mentions the NFPA, but the NIST investigation did not follow NFPA guidelines:

FireFighter Erik Lawyer Slams NIST And The 9/11 "Investigation"

As is pointed out in the video "The Ultimate proof NIST is lying about WTC7":

The NIST report was not peer-reviewed, nor did any engineers sign or seal the document. If you actually read the NIST report and see how their investigation was constructed you find that all the engineers whose names appear on this report were never given access to the full information. The investigation was divided up into parts and a piece was given to each of these engineers to analyze individually. The names of these engineers were then deceptively added to the final report even though none of them reviewed or signed off on the final NIST report.

Even the former Chief of the Fire Science Division of NIST, James Quintiere, stated that he wished their would be a peer-review of their work.

On the other hand, controlled demolition theories have passed peer-review!

What you need to know about "Peer-review"

Anders Björkman Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

Another Peer Reviewed Paper Published in Scientific Journal - 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust...'

James Gourley Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones - Published in "The Environmentalist"

9-11 Truth Movement: Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal

Dr. Crockett Grabbe published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition

Tori says:

"i reviewed much of their junk science and the opinions of their "experts" which we are asked to believe when they offer no more proof than any other scientist..."

Try again.

Hans states:

NIST (my comment above) released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest facade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south facade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.

"I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though." - former NYPD officer and first responder, Craig Bartmer

But never mind that, because here is what the final NIST report had to say on the matter:

"...The damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." - NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii

"Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated." - NIST WTC 7 Q&A webpage

Of course the diesel fuel for WTC 7's emergency generators was something that seemed to have some promise, but no. They state that the diesel fuel "played no role in the destruction of WTC 7," and that it was "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building," and that they were "similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings."

"But to Hell with facts" and a large body of historical precedent, it was the damage that did it. No wait! I know what it was!

The collapse of WTC7 can be explained thanks to a recently discovered physical property of the universe that causes fire to intelligently seek out and destroy the one vital column that stops a building from imploding in on itself at the rate of gravity.

Or it could be that explosive residue scientists found in the dust that NIST refused to test for. But before you say they just found paint chips, I have a challenge for you...

Here is a 26 picture slide show Ryan produced, half of the images are nano-thermite residues and half are materials extracted from WTC dust samples. Can you tell us which ones are which?

Here is a 26 picture slide

And one more link relating to the NIST investigation:

AE911Truth Structural Engineer Dismantles the NIST Analysis of WTC 7

. (0)
Friday December 10, 2010, 3:37 pm
The above comment is from John-Michael.

. (0)
Friday December 10, 2010, 3:40 pm
Chemist Kevin Ryan produced the slide show.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Friday December 10, 2010, 3:41 pm

Thanks for responding, Angela and J-M!

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Friday December 10, 2010, 3:42 pm

J-M is my 9/11 HERO!

(For those who hadn't already figured that out.)

Michael Carney (217)
Friday December 10, 2010, 3:52 pm
Have noted, with interest...I just hope we one day find the real truth about 9/11...I just don't trust the official version...

Barbara W (342)
Friday December 10, 2010, 3:54 pm
Many stars dear Angela as I was about to dig into my file and share links I shared some time back.. Thank you Hans and Carole and all the brave hearts who are not afraid of standing up to the truth. Right now "We" have seen a saint born in the Senate.

Sanders has received tens of thousands of calls alone.

As the founder of the DTDN I never thought I'd live long enough to see a saint in the Senate but Bernie Sanders has made my heart sing! God bless his American heart! Long live Bernie Sanders!

I shared this thought with his Washington office after waiting for three hours to get through.. Hope is alive and well thanks to Vermont's Bernie Sanders and, this wonderous Care2 community.!

Linda G (187)
Friday December 10, 2010, 3:56 pm
I do not pretend to have the answers but I do believe that at the very least, a peer review of the entire report should be implemented. In these troubling times, we just need the truth so we can go from there. If the NIST report is true then it should be able to be confirmed.

. (0)
Friday December 10, 2010, 4:01 pm
As of right now it is impossible for anyone to review their work because...

October 6, 2005: NIST Refuses to Show Computer Visualizations of WTC Collapses The British publication New Civil Engineer reports that, despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, WTC collapse investigators with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are refusing to show computer visualizations of the Twin Towers’ collapses. Despite having shown detailed computer generated visualizations of the plane impacts and the development of fires in the WTC at a recent conference, it showed no visualizations of the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers. Colin Bailey, a professor of structural engineering at the University of Manchester, complains, “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost.” A leading US structural engineer says that NIST’s “global structural model” is less sophisticated than its plane impact and fire models: “The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls.” [New Civil Engineer, 10/6/2005]


Also see:

NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

. (0)
Friday December 10, 2010, 4:04 pm
The rest of the info from the first source:

September 27, 2007: NIST Says It Cannot Explain the Total Collapse of the World Trade Center In a reply to criticisms of its World Trade Center investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) admits that it is unable to fully explain the total collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11. NIST’s letter is a response to a “request for correction” letter sent to it five months earlier by Bob McIlvaine and Bill Doyle, who both lost family members on 9/11, along with scientists Kevin Ryan and Steven E. Jones, architect Richard Gage, and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. This letter made several assertions about NIST’s final reports of its WTC investigation, and suggested they had violated the Data Quality Act and NIST’s information quality standards. NIST’s reply denies the requests for corrections. However, it also mentions, “[W]e are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” of the World Trade Center. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/27/2007 ] In its final report on the Twin Towers collapses, released in October 2005, NIST admitted that its investigation did “not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable” (see October 26, 2005). [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 82 ]
Entity Tags: National Institute of Standards and Technology, World Trade Center
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

. (0)
Friday December 10, 2010, 4:09 pm
Correction: "The rest of the info from the first source (regarding the Twin Towers)."

. (0)
Friday December 10, 2010, 4:29 pm

The Report's section entitled Results of Global Analysis" describes the tops of the Towers first tilting and then moving downward as intact blocks, but there are no images in the Report of its computer models showing this behavior. The New Civil Engineer (NCE), an engineering trade journal based in the United Kingdom, published an article highlighting NIST's failure to publish visualizations of its alleged analysis of "collapse initiation."

Check out the entire page at :

Hans Mueller (591)
Friday December 10, 2010, 4:30 pm
Appendix C of the well-known FEMA Report on the collapse of buildings at the WTC on September 11th, 2001, focuses on two samples of badly corroded structural steel removed from the WTC debris field. The authors of Appendix C, namely J. Barnett, R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson Jr., describe metallographic sectioning and EDS (X-ray fluorescence) analyses of two samples and show that iron sulfide, FeS, surface deposits are associated with the severe corrosion of the steel.

The important questions are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain…… We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up,

In view of the nature of the WTC disaster it is clear that the fires provided a mechanism for the transfer of sulfur containing species from their various sources in the buildings to the surface of structural steel members, thereby creating an environment favorable to sulfiding.

Based on known or assumed inventories of materials in the WTC it is possible to estimate the potential release of SO2 from the two significant sources of sulfur: live load materials and dead load materials. Live load materials are those items that are moveable within the building such as people, office furniture, wall hangings, computers, telephones, printers, paper, etc. Dead load materials are the permanent structural components, such as steel beams and columns, concrete floors, gypsum wallboards, etc, used in the construction of buildings.

WTC 1, 2 & 7 had an important additional source of live load sulfur contained in tanks of diesel fuel oil located in the basement (WTC 1 & 2) or on the ground floor (WTC 7) of these buildings. This fuel was stockpiled for emergency electrical power neration /1/. Diesel fuel oil typically contains about 0.2 % sulfur impurity.

Structural A36 steel accounted for more than 50 % of the WTC building’s dead load and sulfur was certainly present at low concentrations in the A36 steel. Nevertheless, this potential source of SO2 may be discounted because this sulfur was essentially immobilized in sulfide inclusions and not subject to release by oxidation.

There is, however, a potential source of SO2 in another major dead load material, gypsum wallboard, which is essentially pure calcium sulfate di-hydrate, CaSO4.2H2O, and therefore rich, (~ 19 % by wt), in sulfur. Gypsum wallboard was used extensively in the Twin Towers, including locations conventionally reserved for concrete such as the lining of stairwells and elevator shafts. In fact, after steel and concrete, gypsum was the third most widely used construction material in the Twin Towers and contributed about 20 kg/m2 to the building dead load. Thus we estimate that there was about 4 kg of sulfur per square meter of floor space available for the production of SO2 from this source, or about 20 times the amount of sulfur available from all live load materials combined. The question remaining, of course, is: could gypsum wallboard, in regions of the WTC buildings that were exposed to fires, have released a significant amount of sulfur as SO2?

Chemists have investigated the thermal decomposition of gypsum, CaSO4.2H2O or anhydrite, CaSO4, since the early 1900s because of its potential for making sulfuric acid by the liberation of SO2 or SO3 from a plentiful and inexpensive starting material

. (0)
Friday December 10, 2010, 4:42 pm
JM here again.

These ideas have been tested Hans.

AE911Truth Engineer Does for Free what NIST Couldn’t for Millions

And the competing hypothesis has been tested as well.

Slicing Through Every Single 'Debunker' Argument, One at a Time

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Friday December 10, 2010, 4:50 pm

And now, my friends, you get to see how this young man (J-M) was able to convince me -- with his almost all-consuming endeavors for truth and acquired knowledge -- that 9/11 was an inside job.

It broke my heart, and spirit, to admit it . . . and I fought it tooth and nail, because I didn't want to believe it. But, you can not conquer a situation until you acknowledge it as fact.

I'm forever indebted to you, J-M!

. (0)
Friday December 10, 2010, 5:02 pm
Consider your debt paid off in kind words. ;)

Charlene Rush (2)
Friday December 10, 2010, 5:06 pm
Although, my concerns are in line with Just Carole, I don't believe, for one minute, the American public, is ready to hear the truth. To infer that we would have mass rioting, is an understatement.

Some may find it radical to believe, but I would put nothing past the Bush Administration, especially with Cheney calling the shots. There is no doubt in my mind, that our government blew up the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. However, I must add, that they had no choice in this matter, if indeed terrorists were on this plane. That's another B-I-G _IF_.

I consider myself, a cynic and I hold true, 'very little' that our government divulges to us. We will never know the truth, if our previous administration was responsible for the tragedy of 9/11, but future generations may.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Friday December 10, 2010, 5:16 pm

One of the things "they" count on is our resistance to ugly realities.

With the tremendous access to information we now have, and In spite of all we are coming to know, many are reluctant to face reality, preferring, instead, to believe that those telling truth are actually liars (when, in the back of our minds, we know that isn't so).

I think it's a progressive process. You read some, then rest; and read more, and digest -- then, you either deny it, or make a decision to change it; or lie down in reluctant acceptance.

Kathy Chadwell (354)
Friday December 10, 2010, 5:19 pm
When the government puts a gag order on the NYC fight fighters,,, you know something isn't right.
Thank you Carole

Angela Dubie (306)
Friday December 10, 2010, 5:21 pm
Olivia Schlosser (104) Friday December 10, 2010, 1:43 pm
Noted, thanks Carole. Maybe someday we will know the the distant future. Look how long it's taken to find out the truth about the JFK assassination, and it was uncovered largely by foreign investigators. And still the network stations continue to show programs on the idiotic single pristine

Olivia, what J.F.K. facts did other countries prove? I never heard anything about it! However hindsight showes that England was behind it, because the "Brittish invasion" followed month later, and the constitution was never heard from again!

Angela Dubie (306)
Friday December 10, 2010, 6:32 pm
Gerald Ford was the chief investagator of the Warren commision that supp-osedly investagated the assassination of J.F.K., he did as ordered and presto he was president!
No incentive there to tell the truth, and become just another dead president, when you know that the government will just cover that up too!
Asking or allowing the government to investage themselves under the same insanity as having a fox guard your chicken coop! The only was to make sure that our government would not follow in hitlers footsteps by blowing up his own landmarks just to blame it on his enemies, would be to fire and charge the entire government and start over, the same with any presidental assassination, for allowing it to happen on their watch! Remember "not-sees" are blind!
This action has been adopted by peta, who want to pass a law that anyone who goes to an animal fight should be arrested for watching and allowing criminal activity! Even if the gov. was not behind 911 of which i doubt, they still allowed it to happen, and refuse to investage themselves, till there are no doubts!
Most people are unaware that our militart defenses were put on freeze that day for a practice drill of an airplane attack such as the one that happened, why do you think that they blew up the army headquarters and commanding generals? They knew!

Hans Mueller (591)
Friday December 10, 2010, 6:34 pm
My complements to you Angela on your research. There is quite a bit more to what I wrote above than the matter of gypsum wallboard. Something else that bothers me are the credentials of this organization versus those of the various NIST professional organizations. Even their donation address bothers me -
2342 Shattuck Ave., Suite 189
Berkeley, CA 94704

Also, I haven't read, in theirr literature, just what they would test, but more importantly their testing methodology. Sure theories can be tested but the evidence is gone. This was a problem right from the beginning. Even FEMA had to rely on scraps of remaining evidence..

Sylvie M (46)
Friday December 10, 2010, 7:17 pm
In Paris, I remember watching TV with horror on most of that fateful day. I still PERFECTLY REMEMBER MY VERY FIRST THOUGHT when watching saw WTC collapse LIVE, right in front of me eyes. This thought was unbiased because I had turned off the sound for a while... I remember thinking "oh, THEY HAVE decided to put down this building too... it surely had become a threat for other buildings nearby ?"
It's only later, when I turned on the sound again, that I learnt that this collapse of this tower was "not" (?) planned, and was announced as a consequence of a "fire" in it.
I've watched dozens of reports about the famous company CDI making buildings implode all over the world since that day, and the destruction of WTC looks EXACTLY THE SAME than any of those destructions made by the Loizeaux family. This building DID collapse because of controlled demolition: another explanation just defies all common sense... and I've heard at least two different "scenarios" which tried to wipe out the CD theory, this should give you an idea of how far THEY can go to try to turn our brain into jelly!

Sylvie M (46)
Friday December 10, 2010, 7:20 pm
Please forgive me, there's no possibility here to edit a message once it's been posted so as to correct a typo.

On Line 2 of the previous msg, there should be a 7 (seven) between the words "WTC" and "collapse". I remember having hit the 7 key in the numeric pad, but surely not hard enough.

But I also have serious doubts about the Twin towers anyway...

Evelyn Z (300)
Friday December 10, 2010, 7:24 pm
Noted. Sent letter

Yvonne White (229)
Friday December 10, 2010, 10:16 pm
They said ON Camera that the Fire Dept. Chief told (I assume it was the owner) that the building "had to be PULLED", which means it was Demolished - yet they Claim it takes Weeks of Prep Work to properly demolish a building (especially as Nicely as WTC 1 & 2 as well as 7 went down!)!

Cindy Black (61)
Friday December 10, 2010, 11:57 pm
I've been a member of the AE911Truth commission for about 6 months now. First dismissed the idea that this could be an inside job as pure baloney... wacky conspiracy theorists! Doesn't help that I work in mental health and so am used to this stuff and it nearly always turns out baseless. But I carefully reviewed and read all info presented.... very eminent scientists, engineers and architects presenting arguments and evidence that I don't see how anybody could refute! Enough evidence to warrant opening an official investigation, that's for sure. Thank you Just Carole. PS, very interesting discussion thread. I honestly don't know how you guys get the time to keep up on so many topix in such detail! But I do appreciate it.

Past Member (0)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 12:16 am
We the people demand an independent inquiry into this fiasco. Why is it not happening? Maybe building #7 just ran out of breath and collapsed in sympathy with the twin towers? I think not.

jane richmond (10)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 12:20 am
Signed sealed and delivered!

Christina McCabe (35)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 12:40 am
Less than 24 hours after the Towers fell, several people found 2 words coming to mind: 'Reichstag Fire'.....& WTC7 contained tax records & ENRON documents?

. (0)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 1:56 am
Angela is my fiancee. This is John-Michael Talboo speaking, you can see me here .

We intend on making this account say Angela & John-Michael and putting up a picture of ourselves, but just haven't gotten around to it.

If you watch the video in the first link you will see that civil engineer Jonathan Cole used intact and crushed gypsum wallboard, rainwater, crushed concrete, diesel fuel, and aluminum and steel scraps. Then it was set ablaze for 24 hours and the coles lasted for another full day. The fire was finally cool enough by mid-week to examine the steel.

Hans states:

"Something else that bothers me are the credentials of this organization versus those of the various NIST professional organizations."

The NIST WTC investigation team is very small compared to the 1,368 architectural and engineering professionals of AE911Truth. And there are plenty of highly credentialed members among their ranks.

Here is the entire list.

Search through it and you will find people like Dwain Deets. Here is an article about him from

Dwain Deets appointed as NASA Dryden Aerospace Projects Director

February 28, 1996
Release: 96-10

Printer Friendly Version
Mr. Dwain A. Deets has been appointed Director, Aerospace Projects Office at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, Center Director Kenneth J. Szalai announced recently.

Before this appointment, Deets became Director, Research Engineering Division in March 1994 and served as acting division chief from 1990 to 1994. In that position, he directed the research and engineering aspects of the flight research programs at Dryden.

Deets has had several special assignments since September 1994 that took him away temporarily from the Research Engineering Division responsibilities. He led the preparation of the Dryden response to the NASA Federal Laboratory Review. He was Chairman of the NASA Non-Advocate Review of the Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) program in 1995, and will again serve in the capacity for the 1996 review. Among the programs Deets has been associated with at Dryden during his NASA career are the F-8 Digital Fly-By-Wire aircraft, the X-29 Forward Swept Wing technology demonstrator aircraft, the F-16 Advanced Fighter Technology Integration (AFTI) aircraft and the Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology (HiMAT) aircraft.

In 1986 Deets completed a special assignment at NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., where he led an effort to define the needs for flight research and flight testing within NASA. He then headed development of a flight research strategy for what was then NASA's Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, now called the Office of Aeronautics. This effort led to a major increase in emphasis on flight research by NASA.

In 1986 Deets received the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics Award. Among his other awards are the NASA Exceptional Service Award, presented in 1988. He was included in "Who's Who in America" for 1990-91 and "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" from 1993 to the present.

He was the 1988-90 chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. He has also been a member of the AIAA technical committee on Society and Aerospace Technology from 1990 to 1995.

He is a 1961 graduate of Occidental College, Los Angeles. He earned a master of science degree in physics from San Diego State College in 1962 and then a master of science degree in engineering, as part of the Engineering Executive Program, at UCLA in 1978.


Excellent interview with former NASA Engineering Executive and AE911Truth active member Dwain Deets.

Here is an article from AE911Truth showcasing 60 of their aerospace engineers.

You will also find people like Robert F. Marceau, who:

Worked for 30 years as a structural engineer in New Jersey, Colorado, and Nevada. Designed as project engineer a variety of structures including Bridges, High-rise office commercial buildings, parking structures, Project Manager Mirage hotel (Las Vegas) , Part of team on Bank One Ballpark Pheonix, Arizona, and many other structural related projects


Here is an article showcasing 29 of their structural/civil engineers.

Then of course there are the architects where you will find people like 40-year Architect Stephen Barasch:

High-Rise Architect with Transamerica Building Design Experience Signs AE911Truth Petition

And Robert E. McCoy:
Project Architect-Director for many high and low rise steel structures including the 34 story 1.7 Million SF Headquarters Building for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, 44 story Citicorp Building San Francisco, 44 story 575 Market street Building, San Francisco (A Standard Oil Company Headquarters Building), St. Mary's Hospital and Medical Center, San Francisco, and the 1 Million SF Tom Bradley International Terminal at LAX.


Here is a two part video taped interview with Mr. McCoy

It must also be pointed out that the over 10,000 other signatories of the AE911Truth petition includes many highly credentialed people in other fields equally as relevant to the issue. Petition signers include metallurgists, physicists, scientists, explosives experts and demolition contractors.

One of the explosive experts is Tom Sullivan, a former photographer and explosive-charge placement technician for Controlled Demolition, Inc., who was a major player in the removal and recycling of the steel at Ground Zero. While with CDI he personally placed hundreds of explosive charges at the Kingdome in Seattle Washington, which set a world record for the largest structure implosion by volume. He also had an FDNY issued Powder Carrier licence; a position that is just one step down from being "the most highly qualified person at the blasting site."

As far as "what they would test" and "their testing methodology," I suggest watching this video taped interview with by AE911Truth chemical engineer Mark Basile.

Kit B (276)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 5:15 am
Since I was 15 years old I have waited for an answer for what happened to JFK. Now I am resigned to never knowing the truth. I am not necessarily saying it was a conspiracy and yet, there is evidence that supports only that point of view. How can a nation have two conflicting and fact based official documents? One stating without question that he was murdered by 3 shots and a lone gun-man, the other that he was killed by no less then 4 shots and at least 2 that entered his brain. One from the front and one from the rear. I would not wish this on another generation of people, and I fear that is exactly what has happened. I bring this up only because I just watched another investigative report on the assassination, this one by Bill Kurtis, perhaps not the best of sources and leans strongly to the provocative but not the forensic witnesses he relied on. When the best known forensic pathologists in this country are willing to put their reputations on the line, state that with question, in their minds, 2 bullets entered the president's head, one front and one rear, then it does not matter who has produced the show.

That brings me to the point of this topic. I don't know how many that posted here have seen the National Geographic special on the 9/11 controversy. If not, then please do not slam the science, it was well done, it used some very good, fact based science. The problem: when science stands on it's own it does not need any one's explanation, nor does it need the passion of belief.

Those of the 9/11 "truthers" many of whom are indeed "nut cases" just as many of the JFK and other conspiracy advocates are often "nut cases" but that does not remove the underlying facts. Nor does it change that far too many questions remain unanswered. With the destruction of the WTC towers in the year of 2001, we are not in the "dark ages" of forensic science, yes some evidence may have been destroyed, but most was not. Explosions leave trace evidence, not necessarily what the public may understand, and yet not so extraordinarily attenuated as to be beyond understanding. This I believe is the crux of the problem or the disconnect. There was evidence and it may or may not support an internal explosion, it may fully support the government explanation. The FACTS given to date, I think support only that indeed the buildings did fall. Is it then any wonder that so many who are versed and competent in chemistry, physics and fully comprehend the dynamics of explosions are left feeling cheated of answers?

If the buildings fell exactly according the official explanation, then the question still left is why did the government under the direction of the chief executive not take any action to prevent this? We have unambiguous facts to support that state we knew that warnings were given and in the White House weeks before. We know that the bombing in 1993 was not intended as a warning, but was simply a failed attempt to bring down those buildings. Is this then the primary reason for the cover-up? History tells us cover stories (in time) will fall apart.

As for the building in question: Building number 7, I have yet to hear even one official explanation that sets right in my mind. I ponder this am left feeling that once again the government has played out a "gotta cha" on the American people. Is this also to be a 75 secret?

To believe or support a conspiracy idea is to place the advocates in an uncomfortable position. Americans are nothing if not a conformist society. We do not like those who ask us to think beyond the easy explanation.

I strongly support a full investigation of all of the known evidence, the families and the American public deserve and need the truth. We can sort out our individual feelings about that truth once it is learned.

Hans Mueller (591)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 7:15 am
John-Michael - Thank you. Several Questions:

Experiments have already been conducted to determine if thermite could have been present, for example -

9/11 Experiments: The Mysterious Eutectic Steel (Click Here)

Is your organization planning to run a "confirming" test?

If it is possible or likely that thermite was present, what steps would your organization take? Would you get back to NIST or FEMA? What would you do? This seems to be a much larger question than confirming that thermite could have been present.

Hans Mueller (591)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 8:05 am
JFK telling us the 911 truth (Click Here)

Kit B (276)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 8:08 am
Of course thermite was present. It was a fire.

***Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. Most varieties are not explosive, but can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small area for a short period of time.

Amena Andersson (187)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 8:12 am
Thank you, Carole, for keeping the questions alive. We must continue to question authority if we are to take back democracy in this country.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 8:20 am

Thank you so much for that video, Hans! I liked it so much that I have placed it on my profile.

I hope other readers here will view it . . . it's truly inspirational and a reminder of what SHOULD be.

Hans Mueller (591)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 8:23 am
Since you asked, there is thermite and there is thermite. Thermite residue with iron based microspheres is not one's garden variety. You're not likely to find that residue in your fireplace. But if you do, run like hell.

Hans Mueller (591)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 8:45 am
Thank you Carole. In going back and researching 911, I now think that a new investigation would be appropriate. As JFK said, "an error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." I will say that I am extremely skeptical of any conspiracy. If there was "explosive" thermite, this could also have been the work of Al Quada. Of course, that is pure speculation on my part. I just don't see how so many people, who would need to be involved, could carry off such a thing. Anyway, thank you for the posting.

Al Baars (27)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 10:52 am
...and then there's building 5. If fire brought down 7, why didn't it collapse?

. (0)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 10:57 am
"Is your organization planning to run a 'confirming' test?"

I wouldn't call it my organization by any stretch, I volunteer my help for certain projects and wrote one article for them.

The peer-reviewed paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" published in the Open Chemical Physics journal by Betham Scientific Journals was the first confirmation. Here is an excellant summary of the paper:

Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple

The paper was reviewed by an as of yet still anonymous reviewer and Prof. David L. Griscom, who has "refereed at least 600, and possibly as many as 1000, manuscripts" and was himself published twelve times in the American Institute of Physics’ Journal of Chemical Physics.

The paper's third author, physicist Steven Jones, stated in the comments at that in addition the review overseen by Betham that "BYU scientists did a review of the paper" that led to changes in the report. Jones previously revealed in comments on another post that the paper was "peer-reviewed by the Physics dept. chair at BYU... because two of the authors are from this dept." Elsewhere he revealed he was told by the chairman that the paper "was sound scientific research and that he was now persuaded that explosives/pyrotechnics were involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11."

Then we have chemical engineer Mark Basile, who was not involved in the paper, recently stating on video that he has unequivocally confirmed its findings and even obtained a completely independent sample of dust from a NYC museum. He is currently working on a paper as well.

In 2007 Basile attended a conference by Steven Jones where he spoke of his preliminary findings regarding the nano-thermite. Basile approached Jones afterward and offered to independently look at a sample of dust that Jones had gathered from four NYC residents to either confirm or refute his findings.

Basile reports that the material "really shouldn't be there" and stresses that it "is not normal thermite" that "any kid" could make, but instead is "very very difficult to make" and contains ingredients such as nano-aluminum, which the government limits the sale of.

A video taped interview with him is linked in one of my comments above.

French researcher Frédéric Henry-Couannier also confirmed several aspects of the experiments and stated that "the Harrit and Jones team convincingly show that the red-gray chips found in the WTC dust show unreacted nano-thermite." Finally, it was reported by a Danish media outlet that professor of inorganic chemistry Jens Ulstrup, of the Technical University of Denmark, "felt that the assessments were made on the basis of 'very suitable' tests by current standards."

The lead author of the nano-thermite paper was associate professor of chemistry at Copenhagen University in Denmark, Dr. Niels H. Harrit, who was the author/or co-author of nearly 60 peer reviewed scientific, here is what he had to say regarding the idea that terrorists could have been responsible for this aspect of the crime, I

Germany's Interviews Dr. Niels Harrit on Nanothermite at the WTC
by repost
Sunday May 24th, 2009 1:28 PM Is it possible for terrorists to get hold of this material? It's such a special material, so that only people from inside the US army could get hold of it. Where can Nano Thermite be bought? Can normal people buy it as well? Or only companies / military?

Dr. Niels Harrit: This stuff has only been prepared under military contracts in the USA and probably in bigger allied countries. This is secret military research. Do your own guess work and read Kevin Ryan's article on this subject. It was not prepared in a cave in Afghanistan.


Here is Kevin Ryan's article.

The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites

As to how it could have been carried out, one possibility hinted at in the video you posted is that nano-thermite was sprayed on or in beams, it then could have been activated with a micro-detonator. This could have been achieved with existing demolition technology. If this were the case, the operation would not have required large numbers of people as there wouldn't be any need for running miles of det cord through the building. The fact that this could be done unnoticed is evinced by the Citicorp Tower in New York, which underwent a secret structural retrofit that was unknown to the building's tenants and went almost unnoticed by the general public. Furthermore, in 2009 it was reported that drills were successful in planting bombs in ten high-security federal buildings.

The Secret Retrofit of the Citibank Tower in 1978

"For the next three months, a construction crew welded two-inch-thick steel plates over each of the skyscraper's 200 bolted joints during the night, after each work day, almost unknown to the general public."

Hans says:

"Would you get back to NIST or FEMA?"

AE911Truth is on the record with NIST informing them that NFPA guidelines dictate that forensic tests should be run, but they have refused.
ABEL: ... what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?

NEWMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?

NEWMAN: If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time....

--Conversation between a reporter and a NIST spokesperson


I suggest looking at the current effort for a new investigation into Building 7 that Carole has linked to here and contacting those officials! ;)

As to whether could have have been some kind of natural thermite reaction from the circumstances of that day:

Although these elements -- aluminum, iron, oxygen, and silicon -- were all abundant in building materials used in the Twin Towers, it is not possible that such materials milled themselves into fine powder and assembled themselves into a chemically optimized aluminothermic composite as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers.


One of his most well known arguments is that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the tower fires. He lists those ingredients which are necessary for this natural thermite and shows that all of these ingredients were present, so his argument follows that a natural thermite reaction could have taken place. Now I will never claim to be good at chemistry but I know that if I leave margarine, flour, sugar and fruit in a cupboard, when I next open the cupboard I will not find a fruit crumble. Some mechanism is required to convert the ingredients. Similarly, if I take these same ingredients, set them alight and throw them out the window, I still will not get my fruit crumble. The mechanism must have some order. Dr. Greening fails to provide any explanation or narrative for these required mechanisms but rather relies on simply ticking off the ingredients and falling back on the unfailing support of his accolytes. It came as an enormous surprise to me that some educated people have been taken in by this, most notably and recently was Manuel Garcia, in his Counterpunch article. What we are being asked to swallow in place of our absent fruit crumble, is that the tonnes of aluminium aircraft parts were powderised upon impact, thoroughly mixed with tonnes of rust from the towers steel superstructure in exactly the required proportion to form tonnes of thermite, which then hung around for about an hour before distributing itself to key structural points throughout the tower, then igniting in a complex sequence to cause the towers' collapse. It is granted that a good imagination is a requirement for a good scientist, but this just abuses the privilege. Perhaps the name for this natural thermite should instead be intelligent thermite, or intelligent malevolent thermite.


Cary Mostly-Away (94)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 11:01 am
Thanks Carole for all you do.
You are always thinking of others as you demonstrated by installing a hot link to Jae's post for him
making it easier for all of us to just click the link.
You are on top of things as usual and a great help to all of us.
The system won't allow me to send you another star.

Many great posts here by others as well.

We all need to wake up and keep the thermite heat on these banking devils running the parallel governments around the world.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 11:02 am

"Now I will never claim to be good at chemistry but I know that if I leave margarine, flour, sugar and fruit in a cupboard, when I next open the cupboard I will not find a fruit crumble."


. (0)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 11:06 am

The lead author of the nano-thermite paper (was) IS associate professor of chemistry at Copenhagen University in Denmark, Dr. Niels H. Harrit, who (was) IS the author/or co-author of nearly 60 peer reviewed scientific PAPERS, here is what he had to say regarding the idea that terrorists could have been responsible for this aspect of the crime.

Here is more info on those drills where bombs were planted in 10 federal buildings unnoticed.

. (0)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 11:08 am
As to whether THERE could have (have) been some kind of natural thermite reaction from the circumstances of that day:


Kit B (276)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 11:16 am
Thank you Angela, for the information on thermite and nano - thermite, however it does just bring forward more questions. I guess that is as it will remain, the constant nagging part of all this. There is thermite, there would have to be, there is a nano thermite that should not be there, and no specifics about the exact composition.

Like most I really want to know more, but as I learn more I discover that to scratch too far I am again confronted with what is not available for the public to see or know. There is a nasty web of intrigue around all of this. Are we supposed to just settle for the official answer?

You may get fruit flies, Carole,

Hans Mueller (591)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 11:44 am
Carole - Did you get your recipe from The Joy of Cooking? :)

There is a great deal of information available including online. Much is quite technical. I have a Chemical Engineering background but I sometimes scratch my head. You might take a look at the following -

Rethinking Thermite (Click Here)

Hartson Doak (39)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 12:50 pm
It would not be the first time that the US government destroyed something to justify it's actions, "Remember the Maine", the Gulf of Tonkin,etc. Destroy the WTC to justify going after Saddam. Oops! I meant Osma bin Alden. Yeah right!

. (0)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 1:01 pm
That page at Debunking 911 is debunked a million times over by the information I have provided here and the info at my blog.

"no specifics about the exact composition"

Read the paper Kit, it's very specific.

. (0)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 1:04 pm
Jonathan Cole debunks some material from Debunking 911 in his video that is posted in these comments several times. I take on some stuff in this video I put together as well.

The Un-Debunkable Molten Metal

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 1:16 pm

That "recipe" actually came from J-M's Saturday December 11, 2010, 10:57 am comment, that started with:


One of his most well known arguments is that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the tower fires."

Hans Mueller (591)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 1:51 pm
Angela - Thank you for your excellent comments. Just trying to show multiple perspectives. I'm still confused as to where this is heading. If it is possible or likely that thermite was present, what steps will Round 2 take past contacting NIST? This seems to be a much larger question than confirming that thermite could have been present.

. (0)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 2:01 pm
Sorry for the confusion again, but Angela is making no comments here, just John-Michael.

At the Local Level
In early 2010, NYC CAN — on behalf of 9/11 families, first responders, survivors and millions of concerned citizens worldwide — educated the entire 51-member New York City Council through two separate phone and fax campaigns. Over a period of several weeks, more than thousand concerned citizens contacted the offices of three council members per day to inform them about the destruction of Building 7, which until 9/11 housed the Emergency Operations Center for the NYC Office of Emergency Management.

Concurrently, NYC CAN together with members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have met with 12 council members and their staff, and plan to continue meeting with the City Council until it takes action. In June 2010, NYC CAN also coordinated a letter-writing campaign to the Manhattan District Attorney during which more than 1,000 letters were sent laying out the evidence pertaining to Building 7, and suggesting ways for the DA to begin his investigation.

At the Federal Level
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, now representing more than 1,300 licensed and/or degreed architect and engineer petition signers, and 10,000 others, went to Washington DC during the September 11th anniversary for the second year running and met with more than a dozen staff from several congressional representatives together with their constituents to present in person the scientific forensic evidence relating to the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7.

AE911Truth also delivered to hundreds of representatives and senators in person a VIP packet, which included the DVD “9/11: Blueprint for Truth, AE911Truth’s corporate brochure with evidence cards, and the new 9/11 Investigator newspaper. AE911Truth is following up these deliveries with letters to their science advisors, asking them to look specifically at the engineering and physics problems associated with the free fall descent of Building 7.

And, on September 9th, AE911Truth held a press conference and Mock Debate at the prestigious National Press Club, conveying to the media and Congress the scientific forensic evidence relating to Building 7’s destruction. AE911Truth petition signers held more than 60 satellite press conferences around the US and the world in support of AE911Truth, achieving local TV coverage in 4 cities.

Following AE911Truth’s trip to Washington DC last year, one congressman was compelled by the evidence and wrote a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) asking about the investigation of nanothermite, an explosive incendiary found by a team of scientists in every WTC dust sample they tested. Unfortunately, to date, NIST has only responded with boilerplate letters.

. (0)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 2:07 pm
I need to get used to signing things with my name on here even after we make it clear that it's a joint account. I was just finding it hard to keep up with all the mail I was getting on here, and we both had accounts, so I decided it would be easier to share one and both try to tackle the mail coming in as opposed to just having to delete a lot of it.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 2:22 pm

Well, it does make it a wee bit confusing, J-M. (But I respect your choices.)

Frankly, I'm voting for your own separate (9/11 advocacy) account . . . then, maybe a second (social) one for the two of you.

. (0)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 2:31 pm
It wouldn't confusing if the name said Angela and John-Michael Talboo and had a picture of us, right? Maybe I should do that instead of just talking about it. :)

Kit B (276)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 2:32 pm
OK, J-M I would like to talk more about the thermite perhaps we can do that off site? For someone who does understand some chemistry and physics, but will not claim expertise at either I found the last site - well...wanting for facts that are consistent with I have learned. Now, I'm not debunking any thing but I am very curious. In the last few years I have seen the claim of thermite presence to explain both the jet crashes, which is true, and the proof that there was high explosives present, also could be true. I'm neither a believer nor a non-believer, I'm in flux wanting factual and scientific evidence or as best can be done considering the circumstances.

. (0)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 2:33 pm
wouldn't BE

A 9/11 advocacy account... hmm... maybe if you do it with me!

. (0)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 2:36 pm
Not sure what last site you mean, but I'll send you a request so we can chat.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 2:40 pm

J-M, Angela has a truly (almost angelic and old-fashioned sweet) face.

It's hard to get rough in responding to that image that makes me wanna give her a huge hug!


Carole Sarcinello (338)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 2:43 pm

On the other hand, YOU have a cocky, in-your-face, kind of bring-it-on assured look.

THAT I can talk to!

. (0)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 3:17 pm
I thought people were being nicer than usual! She got a kick out of that. ;)


Vernon Huffman (23)
Saturday December 11, 2010, 3:53 pm
On 9/11/01 I was working in the factory where 767s are built in Everett, WA. I was surrounded by engineers, many of whom study aircraft crashes. As we watched the towers fall on a computer screen, our response was unanimous. "They put explosives in the buildings, too."

Since its inception, Boeing has always studied the crashes of its aircraft, in order to improve design. Why were no Boeing employees involved in the investigation of the four events on 9-11?

I don't know exactly what happened on that fateful day. I haven't had access to all the facts. But I can tell you what didn't happen. The official story is full of bolgnia.

Two airplanes did not cause three buildings to collapse into piles of dust in their own footprint.

A poorly trained hijacker did not fly a 757 in a 270 degree banked turn precisely into the one part of the Pentagon where no officers were working because of recent construction. He also did not cause the airplane to fold on both sides of the wingbox (the strongest part of the plane) and enter the building through a hole the size of the fuselage without knocking the engines off their sheer bolts.

It's also highly unlikely that several cell phone calls were completed from high altitude just before a 767 dove into the ground, leaving a charred trench and consuming every bit of the entire plane before firemen arrived.

We got duped. If you wonder why, read the report of Project for a New Century.

Hans Mueller (591)
Sunday December 12, 2010, 7:10 am
>Hans says:
"Would you get back to NIST or FEMA?"

"AE911Truth is on the record with NIST informing them that NFPA guidelines dictate that forensic tests should be run, but they have refused.
ABEL: ... what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?"

Have you or could you publish your notification and NIST's response?

Hans Mueller (591)
Sunday December 12, 2010, 12:06 pm
If anyone has a knack for preparing Care2 petitions, how about one to NIST? I will be happy to help any way that I can.

How To Contact NIST (Click Here)

Al Baars (27)
Sunday December 12, 2010, 2:26 pm
It's also highly unlikely that several cell phone calls were completed from high altitude just before a 767 dove into the ground, leaving a charred trench and consuming every bit of the entire plane before firemen arrived.

I think the plane that 'crashed' was shot down, otherwise, why so little wreckage? Was it shot down to eliminate a threat, or because the passengers / crew regained control of the plane?

As usual with this event, more questions than answers, the criminals did a good job of covering their tracks and avoiding any attempt at an investigation for two years in order to make sure all their bases were covered.
We can only hope Wikileaks has something on this.

No doubt that this was a false flag op.

I don't subscribe to the theory that the planes had no passengers and crew, because the people that set this up have no regard for human life, and a passenger list represents all kinds of loose ends.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Sunday December 12, 2010, 2:33 pm

"I don't subscribe to the theory that the planes had no passengers and crew..."

Agreed, Al. I DO subscribe to the theory that the real lives lost were nothing but "collateral damage" to their bigger scheme.

Americans need to wake up to the fact -- with plenty of proof -- that the lower class citizens of this country are merely "fodder."

One needs only to look at the lack of respect returning soldiers receive, when claiming physical and mental damages, after being deployed, re-deployed, ad nauseum.

Wake up, folks!

. (0)
Sunday December 12, 2010, 2:59 pm
Undisputed Facts Point to the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7 Response to NIST’s Invitation for Written Comments

"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? . . . NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel." -- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST

. (0)
Sunday December 12, 2010, 3:13 pm
NIST's World Trade Center FAQ - A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Sunday December 12, 2010, 3:21 pm

Thank you, J-M, for your speedy (and informative) responses to all questions posed on behalf of 9/11 "truthers."

Equally? I find it notable that government responses to these questions, posed by "truthers," cannot be found!

Touche', eh?

Hans Mueller (591)
Sunday December 12, 2010, 4:01 pm
More Bad Science Surrounding the “Nano-Thermite” Red Herring (Click Here)

. (0)
Sunday December 12, 2010, 4:58 pm
Debunking Scott Creighton's Debunking of Nano-thermite

Hans Mueller (591)
Sunday December 12, 2010, 7:05 pm
Why is there so much debunking, then debunking of the debunking, then .........
Is it all a CIA and NSA plot to cover up the truth? Just how many people were in on this massive coverup?
Now I'm reading that Al Qaeda was possibly part of the coverup and that the planes were possibly massive drones.Why was Building 7 blown up, because of the CIA offices there? What was the necessity to blow up Building 7, Weren't the Twin Towers enough? Never has there been such a well kept secret among so many thousands of people.

Angela Dubie (306)
Sunday December 12, 2010, 8:56 pm
Well said hasns, i once saw a video that showed where someone said to pull #7 and told the firefighters to stand off, i'll see it i can''t track it down! I alo heard that there was a documentary crew at the closest fire dept to wtc, i also heard that the demolation command center was set up in #7!
It just amazes me to any American could not doubt the governments hand in this disaster by now, because even a child could see that buildings don't just implode like that, it was a specular example of the art of inplosion, in fact it was a text book model, other than the people inside and the fire fighters and spectators, if you have ever witnessed one, you will know, and for another thing no other buildind in the history of buildings has ever imitated a demolition, vegas would take odds like that!
Why does no one ever mention the owner of W.T.C. and the loot that he made off of his 3 week old insurence policy? OOr the empty vaults, for it was only telivised once, i saw it live, they sent in the rescue team to get the money and the vaults were intact, bbut empty behind locked doors, Geraldo striks yet again!
The part of the Pentagon that was destroyed was under construction, and they had to fly around the white house to get to it, and they never mention that the General of the Army was killed! They did give a few names of the passengers on some of the planes, even a couple of famous names, could these people been on the C.I.A. hit list!
Hans i also saw video of the planes that hit the twin towers, slowed down and up close that showed a pod on the plane, that sould have been a drone control or bomb, but the military was in stand down because of a training mission to have a drill if drone piolated planes hit a building! and guess what, they do have this technology and the planes!
You are so right about the thousands that were in on it, did you know that on a normal day ay W.T.C. there were 10 times the amount of employees, that were there on that fateful day, i heard of several reports of people receiving calls telling them to take the days off, not all listened!!
Any conspiracy theory with this much evedence can no longer be called a conspiracy, for 99.9% of the people in prison were covvicted on circumstantial ivedence compared to this open and shut cast against our own government, and in fact this should become the model case for conviction, unless it has more evidence against them then we have on this one, that does not seem to have enough to even go to court, and let every one out with less!

. (0)
Sunday December 12, 2010, 11:56 pm
Hey Hans, JM here again.

"why is there so much debunking, then debunking of the debunking"

Well, the link exchange that sparked this question is funny because the link you provided is from a guy that thinks that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were blown up on 9/11. I know him. We just talked on the phone last week. He just thinks that conventional explosives were used.

The question Hans, is who is debunking who? There is not one so-called debunker or official investigator that has done any forensic tests. So how could they have debunked this part of the evidence? They flap their jaws, nothing more.

NIST was not peer-reviewed and the biggest paper to defend a gravitational collapse theory was "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York" by Zdenek Bazant. This paper was refuted twice by demolition advocates in the same journal he published in.

You state, “now I'm reading that Al Qaeda was possibly part of the coverup and that the planes were possibly massive drones.”

Here is the bottom line.

When the alleged 9/11 plotters offered to confess at Guantánamo in December of 2008 many probably asked themselves: "What does it mean for the 9/11 truth movement?” The answer is nothing; many people make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of grey. Even if we accept that bin Laden and gang were the masterminds of 9/11 it does not negate a slew of evidence indicating that they were allowed to succeed and had their results amplified. 9/11 very well could have been an inside and an outside job.

You state, “never has there been such a well kept secret among so many thousands of people.”
Here is something I wrote recently regarding this argument.

Mr Irrational

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog made a post today praising these so-called "sensible conclusions" of a blogger calling himself Mr Rational:

So how can this notion be applied to the 9/11 truth movement? The following is a common example of special pleading (e.g., How can the govt. continue to conceal the conspiracy if literally thousands of people were involved? Special plead: you don’t understand the concept of compartmentalization within the government).
This argument is special pleading because it avoids having to answer the real problem, namely that even with compartmentalization there still remain thousands of people who have to remain silent. Lets take the people who set up the demolition charges for instance. If they were only given instructions to set charges and nothing else, then I find it a little odd that not a single one of them has come forward with this information. The notion of compartmentalization fails when we realize that if one link in the chain fails, then the entire conspiracy fails.

First off, it can't be the fallacy of special pleading because we have unrefuted peer-reviewed science on our side. Therefore, Mr Rational's typical "debunker" a priori objection, according to The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, falls into the category of a priori fallacies because one cannot "base knowledge of fundamental synthetic truths on anything other than empirical evidence."

As Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Steve Weathers put it:

"It does not matter what problems we face with other details of the attacks, we KNOW, from the key forensic evidence, that the WTC buildings were brought down using explosives."

The idea that government complicity in the attacks would require large numbers of people with full knowledge of the operation is a notion largely debunked by the intelligence technique of compartmentalization, but does this still leave thousands knowing pieces of the puzzle?

In fact, this assertion is itself using the logical fallacy of necessity where "a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises." One part of the premise here is that controlled demolitions require large numbers of people, which leads to the conclusion that controlled demolitions on 9/11 would require the same.

However, as points out:

"A demolition that is planned as part of a covert operation to fit a narrative of events that attributes the total destruction of the building to a different cause (such as a jetliner crash and consequent fires) has a very different set of requirements than a demolition that is planned to legally remove a building in an urban setting."
Beyond this, the intricacies of the evidence indicate a plethora of ways in which the number of people intimately involved in all aspects of the plot could have been significantly decreased, but we'll get there in a second.

The next part of Mr Rational's premise relies on the fallacy of assumption where "someone assumes the very thing they are trying to prove." He simply assumes somebody would have talked in such a conspiracy, and since they haven't there was no conspiracy.

However, as professor David Ray Griffin stated:

...How could one know this? If some big operations have remained secret until now, we, by definition, don’t know about them.

Moreover, we do know about some big operations that were kept secret as long as necessary; such as... the war in Indonesia in 1957 which the United States provoked, participated in, and then kept secret until 1995.
Many more examples could be given.

Another great example is Operation Gladio set up by the CIA and NATO. Although Gladio was eventually exposed, it was not just a single event, but an ongoing operation that remained secret for decades, in which hundreds of innocent people were killed and injured in terrorist attacks that were blamed on other groups.
Now that I've put this claim of fallacy from a three time offender in perspective, let's wrap this thing up.
In regard to how the NORAD stand-down was achieved, many have speculated that inaction by an intentionally AWOL chain of command was combined with deliberate confusion via the four wargames that were conducted on 9/11, which seem to have included live-fly simulations of hijackings, and NORAD radar screens, which displayed false tracks throughout the attacks. But no matter how it might have been achieved, one thing is clear, it would have only required the complicity of a few high level officials.

Pat states that:

"No matter how compartmentalized the work was, there would be a hell of a lot of people who would say, 'You know, I wonder if those weird ceiling tiles I installed at the WTC had anything to do with the collapse.'"

He is referring to Jim Hoffman's hypothetical blasting scenario. If this is how the demolition was carried out the ceiling tiles would not look weird at all.

As Hoffman's website states:

"Explosive devices could have been disguised as or concealed within legitimate equipment, such as smoke alarms or ceiling tiles, and installed by workers oblivious to their surreptitious function. Numerous such possibilities are afforded by the properties of energetic materials."

And these numerous possibilities are beyond the hypothetical. Civil Engineer Jonathan Cole recently published a video of experiments he carried out proving that thermite variants, such as were found in samples of WTC dust, can demolish vertically standing steel beams. One possibility hinted at in the video is that nano-thermite was sprayed on or in beams and activated with a micro-detonator. If this were the case, the operation still would not have required large numbers of people as there wouldn't be any need for running miles of det cord through the building. The fact that this could be done unnoticed is evinced by the Citicorp Tower in New York, which underwent a secret structural retrofit that was unknown to the building's tenants and went almost unnoticed by the general public. Furthermore, in 2009 it was reported that drills were successful in planting bombs in ten high-security federal buildings.

Now, why have we not seen any of this small group of operators come forward, well Mr Rational, because that would be irrational!

People rarely do things opposed to their own self interest. Hence, conspirators usually rat on their co-conspirators only to receive lesser sentences. They rarely pop up out of the blue and say, "would you please give me a lethal injection." In fact, with this mass murder, it is likely that many of the operatives have already received one without asking for it! A real investigation into the events of 9/11 is yet to take place. If and when this occurs, the lesser conspirators or accomplices may be granted immunity, or granted favorable plea bargains in return for turning state’s evidence, leading to convictions of numerous others.
With all that being said, it would still be expected that people not directly involved who caught wind of suspicious goings-on would probably talk, and in fact, they have:

Here is a discussion about possible motives for WTC 7.

Some a priori objections have easy answers, some not so much, but one thing they all have in common is a fast death by empirical evidence.

Hans Mueller (591)
Tuesday December 14, 2010, 8:39 am
Words divide us, actions unite us !

Why haven't there been any petitions to NIST or feedback on contacts to NIST?

How To Contact NIST (Click Here)

Angela Garris (33)
Wednesday September 25, 2013, 2:04 am
Visit to sign a new petition calling for a reinvestigation of WTC 7's "collapse."
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.