Saturday, August 31, 2013 Nearly 50,000 Petition Signatures Against Syrian War

43,176 of 50,000
people have signed – see totals by state and Congressional District.
BackgroundThe neocon war criminals who took the U.S. into an illegal and disastrous war in Iraq are back - and demanding major attacks that will lead inevitably to a Syria War.
The Shock and Awe bombing of Baghdad in 2003 that launched the disastrous Iraq WarWe say No!
Attacking Syria won't reduce the violence - it will only escalate it with devastating consequences for Syrians and Americans, as we learned so painfully in Iraq.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq killed 100,000 to 600,000 Iraqi civilians. For Americans, the invasion killed 4,486 U.S. troops and wounded 32,223. Of the 2.3 million U.S. troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, roughly 20% suffer from PTSD or Traumatic Brain Injury, and hundreds commit suicide each year. For returning troops and their loved ones, the war is never over.
President Obama may prefer sending a few missiles from a distance, but Republicans like John McCain and Lindsey Graham are demanding much larger attacks - which would easily lead to all-out war with Syria.
Moreover Syria, unlike Iraq, has the support of major military powers like Russia and Iran, which could lead to a much larger war across the entire Middle East.
Economically, the U.S. absolutely cannot afford war with Syria. The Iraq War cost the U.S. economy $3 trillion and helped cause the Great Recession of 2008, which has still not ended.
Since Republicans refuse to raise taxes, the inevitable costs of a Syrian War will come from food stamps, education, health care, environmental protection, and Social Security. The American people adamantly oppose cuts to these essential programs.
These are among the reasons Americans oppose a Syria War.
The U.S. cannot solve Syria's civil war by turning that war into a U.S. war - instead we must increase our efforts to find a diplomatic solution, as was done successfully in Northern Ireland. And when we have solid evidence of the people who ordered any chemical weapons attacks, we should bring them before the International Criminal Court for war crimes.
PetitionMost Americans oppose a Syria War - and I am one of them.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were disastrous, both in human and economic terms. War in Syria could be even worse.
We have no idea who we're fighting for - Al Qaeda?
Moreover we already have a federal budget crisis that is causing devastating cuts to food stamps, Head Start, and other crucial programs. We have absolutely no money for a new Syria War.
A U.S. war is not the solution to Syria's civil war - we need increased diplomacy instead, like the successful effort to end the civil war in Northern Ireland. And whoever ordered chemical attacks should be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.
As your constituent, I demand that you vote against a Syria War, and block any funds for any military actions that could start such a war.

Sign Here:


No U.S. Military Intervention in Syria! Letter to Congress and Petition Action Alerts

The UK government : No military intervention in Syria Petition No War on Syria Petition

The Conflict in Syria is a PROXY WAR: This is ALREADY a Criminal Circumstance! 

Friday, August 30, 2013

UPDATE: Architects and Engineers For 911 Truth- More than 2000* Building Experts say 911 was an Inside Job

The Screw Loose Change blog predicted ae911 would hit the 2,000 mark in 2021! All kidding aside, ae911 hit the mark on the head this time with their goal of reaching 2,000 before this upcoming 9/11, but not a word from SLC, who was quick to point out that the first 1,000 was reached well after the projected goal.

UPDATE: Architects and Engineers For 911 Truth- More than 2000* Building Experts say 911 was an Inside Job
More than TWO THOUSAND experts now say that the attacks on the World Trade Centre Towers (and Building 7) were an inside job.

The reason for such a position is clear: there is overwhelming forensic evidence that demonstrates explosives MUST have been used on the buildings.

The official lies about 911 cannot be allowed to stand. Exposing the truth is necessary to stop any further staged attacks that could be used as a pretext to clamp down on civil liberties or as a justification for new Wars versus countries such as Iran. We live in dangerous times and we need experts like these to help fight against the lies.

Go to the AE911truth website and sign their petition. Become a sustaining member and donate money to further their operations. Give 10 dollars a month or more if you can afford it. Don't let the criminals win.

The analysis provided by these Architects and Engineers MUST be used by honourable Law Enforcement, Judicial and Military persons in actions against the real suspects. Don't let the perpetrators of 911 go unpunished. Spread the word about September 11 being an inside job !

As cliche as this sounds, we ARE all in this together. The only way to stop the threat of terrorism and to end the wars is to stand up and be heard. Nothing good will happen if we all remain silent.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, August 30th, 2013.]

Who Are These 2,000 Architects and Engineers?

Written by Rick Shaddock and Gregg Baptista   
Thursday, 12 September 2013 08:29


AE911Truth Petition Signers' Expertise Unveiled

More than 2,000 architects and engineers have now signed the AE911 Truth petition to Congress calling for a new, independent investigation into the World Richard GageAE911Truth founder and international speaker Richard Gage, AIA, was the first signer of the AE911 Truth petition to Congress, which now has the signatures of over 2,000 architects and engineers and 17,000 othersTrade Center attacks on 9/11.

By recently adding their names and reputations to the petition, the professionals who pushed us past the 2,000 mark in August bolster the foundation of credibility and scientific knowledge on which the AE911Truth effort is built. You can now download the full petition signer list.

Reaching this milestone is doubly exciting because it comes just in time for the kickoff of the worldwide ReThink911 ad campaign – itself a watershed event – on the 12th anniversary of 9/11.

“I am thrilled that so many architects and engineers have reached the same conclusions we have, and are willing to stand up and demand a real investigation,” said Richard Gage, AIA, founder of AE911Truth. “My thanks go out to all of our supporters who helped to educate the public and encourage their colleagues and friends in the technical professions to sign the petition.”

Gage was the first signer of the petition back in April 2006 – when, startled by the WTC evidence he heard from David Ray Griffin on the radio, he founded the organization and has since sought to find other A/E’s through radio interviews and live presentations in 28 countries – numbering almost 600 altogether. The number of signers has grown steadily over the years, and is likely to continue growing as more and more professionals encounter the compelling evidence that AE911Truth continues to work so hard to disseminate.
Architects and engineers are the core of AE911Truth’s program because they are the type of professionals most likely to have a deep understanding of the scientific principles underpinning the evidence we present. To ensure the integrity of our list, we individually verify each A/E petition signer’s credentials by contacting them directly, obtaining copies of their degree/license, and checking for authenticity.

While the sheer number of signers in these key professions lends weight to our call for a new investigation, our petition list reflects quality as well as quantity. It contains signers from an impressive array of professions relevant to the issues surrounding the three World Trade Center high rises destroyed on 9/11. For instance, more than 160 signers are civil engineers, nearly 160 are electrical engineers, and more than 240 of these are licensed professional engineers (P.E.).

“Credibility is crucial,” said Gage. “Harping defenders of the official story try to dismiss our evidence by charging us with ignorance or lack of understanding. Yet we are supported by Dan BarnumDaniel Barnum, FAIA, explains why he challenges the official story of 9/11 in the film 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Outthousands of architects and engineers boasting solid credentials, years of experience, and degrees from first-rate institutions. As well, the broader public pays closer attention when our compelling claims come from such acknowledged experts in their fields.”

A Closer Look at the Petition Signers

The architects and engineers who have signed our petition reflect a wide range of disciplines and specialties. A great many hold degrees from nationally and internationally respected colleges and universities, and many have received high honors from their professional or academic communities. Many are principals of firms, and several dozen have designed high-rise structures similar to the World Trade Center buildings. For most, the length of professional experience can be measured not in years but in decades, and collectively, they comprise more than 30,000 years of qualified technical experience. In short, they are precisely the kinds of people that our society turns to when trying to understand complex events like the catastrophic destruction of the World Trade Center – that is, experts.

More than 75 AE911Truth petition signers hold Ph.D. degrees. More than 190 hold M.S. degrees. Nearly 100 of our architects are members of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). Seven of our signers are Fellows of the AIA (FAIA), one of the highest honors that the organization can bestow upon a member. High-rise architect Daniel Barnum, FAIA, is one of the signers who holds this prestigious distinction, which reflects great personal and professional achievement. More than 75 AE911Truth petition signers hold Ph.D. degrees. With more than 40 years of experience, Barnum has worked on major high-rise office buildings in Houston, Texas, and was project manager for a 22-story high-rise office building in Akron, Ohio. In recalling the collapse of World Trade Center 7 in the film 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out, Barnum said, “…a few fires in that building and, I mean, they weren’t even raging, and how could that cause a building to collapse? Couldn’t happen.”

More than 60 petition signers received degrees from Ivy League institutions, including 17 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 16 from Harvard University, and 5 from Yale University. These are people who, as high school students, typically graduated with the top grade point averages in their class, in order to be selected for admission.

Jody GibbsArchitect Jody Gibbs, speaking here in 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out, is a graduate of both Harvard and Yale, and was on the faculty of MIT.Architect Jody Gibbs, for example, is a graduate of both Harvard and Yale. He has commented on the six-ton structural steel section from World Trade Center 1 that somehow was thrown into the American Express building like a dart – indicating the use of explosives. “Gravity works vertically, not laterally,” he said succinctly but with the kind of appeal to basic physics that tends to demolish the official 9/11 story.
In a letter urging his fellow architects to attend a showing of a popular 9/11 Truth film, Gibbs exposed the failings of the 9/11 Commission Report. “Unfortunately the 9/11 Commission was not a court procedure or a scientific investigation,” Gibbs wrote. “Instead, it was a public hearing convened by politicians. There was no forensic investigation for explosives. World Trade Center Building 7 was not even investigated. No explanation was given for the pulverization of the concrete in midair, nor the free-fall time of the collapses . . . . There were members of the FBI, the NSA, military intelligence, and numerous scientific and engineering experts who wished to present information to the Commission contradicting the official story, but were denied the opportunity.” When Gibbs wrote this letter in 2009, he referenced “nearly one thousand” architects and engineers calling for a new investigation. Today there are twice that many.

Another Ivy League graduate, David Johnson, adds an uncommon level of first-hand knowledge to his stellar academic credentials. A Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners, Johnson holds both undergraduate and graduate degrees from Yale (where he studied under a professor who had worked on the Empire State Building) and a Ph.D. in Regional Planning from Cornell University, and is Professor Emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning at The University of Tennessee. “As a professional city planner in New York,” Johnson wrote in his petition statement, “I knew those buildings [the Twin Towers] and their design. I attended and participated in the hearings at the New York City Hall when the buildings were first proposed. . . . So I was well aware of the strength of the core with its steel columns, surrounding the elevators, and stairwells. . . . When I saw the rapid collapse of the towers, I knew that they could not come down the way they did without explosives and the severing of core columns at the base.

David Griscom9/11 researcher and AE911 Truth petition signer Dr. David Griscom is a graduate of both Carnegie Mellon and Brown UniversitiesIn addition to the Ivy Leagues, many other academic institutions with excellent reputations are represented among the signers of our petition, including Carnegie Mellon University, which specializes in engineering and is consistently ranked highly in engineering disciplines. One of the 15 signers with a degree from Carnegie Mellon is David Griscom, a physicist who received his B.S. from Carnegie Mellon and his Ph.D. from Brown University. Dr. Griscom worked at the Naval Research Laboratory, and was chosen by NASA from among hundreds of scientists as a team leader in analyzing the moon rocks from the Apollo missions. He has published 193 studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals and was a reviewer of the study on thermitic material found in the dust of the World Trade Center.

Dr. Griscom emphasizes the importance of credentialed professionals lending their expertise to the 9/11 Truth movement, saying, “I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals [such as] the Journal of Applied Physics.”

Our signers are geographically diverse as well – living, working, and receiving their education all over the country and around the world. The universities mentioned above, for example, suggest plenty of representation in the eastern U.S., but we also have verified signers educated at such schools as Northwestern University (near Chicago), Iowa State University, and Texas Tech University. On the west coast, the University of California at Berkeley has the greatest number of graduates on the petition (41), scoring the highest in the nation in the “9/11 league” of universities.

Richard Gage, AIA, received his degree in Architecture in 1986 from the University of Southern California. Nearby Stanford University and the California Institute of Technology are also well represented. We have several international signers as well, hailing from such countries as Denmark, Australia, Germany, France, and the U.K.

This is merely an overview of the people whose knowledge, experience, and scientific insights stand behind AE911Truth as we push on to create a broader awareness of WTC issues, bring about a new investigation, and eventually bring the real perpetrators to justice. Many of the petition signers have come forward to give video-recorded interviews stating their views on 9/11. They are featured in the film 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out. This film has been playing for months on Colorado Public Television – becoming the “most watched / most shared” video on and reaching millions of viewers. You can watch the film with pledge breaks featuring Richard Gage, AIA. A bonus DVD included with the full-length version of Experts Speak Out contains the video “Meet the Experts,” which is a two-hour compilation in which experts from the documentary introduce their significant credentials, personal experiences, and professional opinions about 9/11. The complete two-disk DVD set is available in our online store.

The data used was the Petition List as of June 3, 2013. The summary will be updated every month or so. For the latest counts and more details, visit

The UK government : No military intervention in Syria Petition

Petition by

Global Political Insight
The USA and the UK governments have been increasing their rhetoric regarding military intervention in Syria, following alleged claims that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against its own people. Though the international community has the responsibility to get to the bottom of what happened, military intervention is not the right option. Following the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, UK simply cannot afford another military campaign in the Middle East, especially given the truly complicated situation in Syria.

Over the last decades, lives have been ruined and countries destroyed because of Western intervention in the Middle East. Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan still suffer. It would be naive to assume that the outcome in Syria would be any better.

We urge the UK government to not choose military intervention as the main course of action. Diplomacy must still remain the main path towards the end of the conflict in Syria. We must learn from history and our past mistakes.


No U.S. Military Intervention in Syria! Letter to Congress and Petition Action Alerts Nearly 50,000 Petition Signatures Against Syrian War No War on Syria Petition

The Conflict in Syria is a PROXY WAR: This is ALREADY a Criminal Circumstance!

Wednesday, August 28, 2013 No War on Syria Petition

To be delivered to: The United States House of Representatives, The United States Senate, and President Barack Obama

War is not the answer. Not in Iran. Not in Syria.

Intervention in Syria only makes matters worse. All sides are committing war crimes, and providing arms only results in more killing.

The US and all foreign governments should stay out of Syria and let the Syrian people resolve their own political matters in their own way. Our government must keep its arms, funding and troops out of Syria.


No U.S. Military Intervention in Syria! Letter to Congress and Petition Action Alerts Nearly 50,000 Petition Signatures Against Syrian War

The UK government : No military intervention in Syria Petition

The Conflict in Syria is a PROXY WAR: This is ALREADY a Criminal Circumstance! 

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

911 Truth Graffiti Bombing - WTC7 Awareness

The next level of 9/11 TRUTH street activism. For a second time, a local news channel has been compelled to explain the collapse of WTC7 to the public, as a direct result of the graffiti.

The War on Terror and the loss of civil liberties is the direct result of the false flag 911 attacks. Only the truth about what happened can reverse this situation. For more information on the destruction of World Trade Centre building 7 see the following clip:

Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth

Please note: The main obstacle in overcoming the continuing cover-up is the lack of public awareness. Regardless of the disinformation, key facts like the freefall collapse of WTC7, the molten steel, and the nanothermite, prove that the attacks of 911 involved inside help.

Simple slogans like 'Google WTC7' or even '' will help alert the public to the deception we have all endured. The endless War on Terror will not stop until we can break out of this cover-up society with its captured press and corrupted Government.

[And it is thanks to this situation we have relative non-action regarding the Fukushima disaster. Debunkers and Truthers are all in the same boat at the end of the day.]

RELATED INFORMATION: On how those in high office are controlled (other than lobbyist bribery) via blackmail - so that they do the bidding of the establishment rather than helping the people: 

Monday, August 19, 2013

Answering Youtube Troll ctcole77's '3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM'



Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval.


 In April 2009, an international team of scientists published the peer-reviewed paper, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. Harrit et al. focus on the remnants of only one of the thermitic materials used to demolish the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The red layer of the reported red/gray chips is a novel type of energetic material that US laboratories developed in the years leading up the attacks in 2001. The paper does not report the thermate that was most likely used along with the chips of "super-thermite," or the plethora of supporting evidence that awaits your attention: Plenty of witnesses, including first-responders, have testified that explosions were seen and heard. The rubble of the towers confirms their testimonies with the tell-tale signs of spent thermitic materials - including high-temperature sulfur corrosion and tons of molten metal. Several reports mention the abundant molten iron-rich spheres in the dust, which are the trade-mark residue of these materials. The air-pollution provides further evidence, and all this is hardly a coincidence. The US government agency that was supposed to investigate the collapses did not follow the standard N.F.P.A. 921 investigative protocol when it ignored or destroyed all the evidence and refused to look for "exotic accelerants" in the rubble. This is unscientific and also alarming since the agency helped to develop the reported material. The official account of 9/11 is a cover-up, and we need a proper independent investigation. A lot of highly credentialed professionals have become aware of the situation, but many remain in the dark as became evident at the 2011 NYC premiere of the AE911Truth film, 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out. According to Talboo, "an individual who held a professional engineer's license asked during the Q&A session why he had never heard of AE911Truth," and another architect "was found in tears over the terrible implications of the evidence."

Dr. Harrit has a Chemistry PhD from the University of Copenhagen, where he became a faculty member and currently conducts research at the prestigious Nano-Science Center. The second author is Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, who has a PhD in Materials Science and Engineering. Farrer is the TEM lab director at Brigham Young University, where he has access to world-class equipment. The third author is Dr. Steven Jones, a Professor Emeritus at BYU with a PhD in Physics. Dr. Jones has published over fifty reviewed papers in some of the best journals, but he notes that the review process was unusually tough for this paper, "with pages of comments by referees." And according to Jones this "led to months of further experiments." The thorough peer-review is not surprising since one of the referees has publicly identified himself as Dr. David L. Griscom, a chemical physics expert and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Griscom´s incredible 40 year career includes Lunar dust research for NASA, managing research for DARPA, and more than 30 years of working for the Naval Research Laboratory. Griscom has also been the principal author of well over 100 reviewed papers, and has himself reviewed at least 600 papers. Harrit et al. thank Griscom in the acknowledgement section of the paper because he had revealed his identity to them. Some people have tried to discredit Griscom´s review because of that, but there is nothing unusual about thanking an identified reviewer - some journals also allow the authors to suggest one reviewer. The same people have tried to discredit Griscom´s review because he does not believe the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, as the 911blogger known as "Sitting-Bull" has noted: "Some "Debunkers" already claim that he was chosen because he was a "truther". That´s totally bogus." Sitting-Bull adds that Griscom "did not play a vocal or any role in the 9/11 truth movement prior to 2007/2008," and that "Bentham surely did not find his rare blog entries on the issue for selecting him." Sitting-Bull emphasizes that Bentham must have researched "their database for valuable scientific referees in the field of research with good experience," and that Griscom would have been an obvious choice given his reputation.

The "debunkers" also conveniently forget to mention that there was also another reviewer who remained anonymous, as noted by one of the authors, Gregg Roberts. Roberts states that the other reviewer "provided a much less rigorous review than did Griscom," and that this referee also approved of the paper "if the review points were dealt with adequately.." Those "months of further experiments" really paid off because Griscom states that he had "absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper!" This statement resulted in Joseph Nobles´s proverbial failure at manifesting a salient retort: "And yet Griscom says that he couldn’t find anything to criticize about the ATM paper! 12 notes of suggestions he has that makes Harrit, et al. sweat and strain to meet (according to Jones), but none of these are criticisms?" The level of Nobles´s reading comprehension is embarrassing, but unfortunately it is typical for the so-called "debunking sites", such as his What Griscom actually said is that he "found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper!" You know, the final version they produced after they made the changes based on the review!

The journal editor-in-chief caved in to political pressure and resigned after the paper had been published, without actually criticizing the content of the paper. The "debunkers" began their smear-campaign against the journal even before the paper got published, so the resignation has been seen as an opportunity to slander the journal, the paper and it´s authors. The campaign forced another editor to resign and effectively killed the journal for a whole year, but it started to recover after that. These "debunkers" have also attempted to ruin the reputation of the whole family of (over 150) Bentham Open journals because one of those journals published a hoax-paper according to them, and that is supposed to discredit by association the journal that published Harrit´s paper. But the "debunkers" only discredit themselves, because although one of those journals tried to discover the identity of the hoaxers by sending them a letter stating that it would publish the paper if they would just "fill and sign the attached fee form," there never was any intention to publish. Some "debunkers" still spread the false rumors about these journals publishing hoax-papers and that Harrit´s paper is not reviewed. The dullest specimens also resort to vile personal attacks, as is so perfectly exemplified by Pat Curley from the site Screw Loose Change who calls Dr. Griscom a "sack of fecal matter" and a "Troofer moron." However, as one of Harrit´s co-authors so accurately noted, all these diversionary claims and ad hominem arguments are "just a way to avoid dealing with what the paper says." The formal peer-review by Griscom and the other referee was indeed valid and unusually tough, but it did not stop therer.  Jones stated in the comments 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 that 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."


Why won't Kevin Ryan allow ANY of his precious dust samples to be tested by an independent laboratory?


As blog contributor Adam Taylor stated to ctcole77,  "Kevin Ryan has already had samples stolen right out of his mail. I'm not surprised he's reluctant to release any more. He even provides pictures of his tampered mail."

Scarcity of samples and the tests he would like to run on them, like his recent FTIR results below, may also be an issue. More on that in an upcoming blog post.

But his reasoning to not share samples is irrelevant, because of Mark Basile's, "Proposal for independent study of the WTC dust Using an independent lab that has no idea that the dust is from the WTC or from 9/11." Details at:


Why won't Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, or Kevin Ryan refute the recent truth seeking professional scientific study of the WTC dust performed by Dr. James Millette?


Dr. Jones, Dr. Legge and Kevin Ryan have commented on Millette´s supposed challenge to their 2009 paper.

 Having read Millette´s preliminary report, Dr. Jones stated that:

James Millette did NOT do DSC analyses at all for his report MVA9119. What a shame, really...When Dr. Farrer burned epoxy paint in the DSC, it gave a very broad thermal trace, NOT at all like the spiked exothermic DSC peak in our Fig 19. This is one of the many tests he did to check things. Also, we checked the electrical resistivity of several paints – consistently orders of magnitude higher than that of the red material. We reported the resistivity of the red material in our paper, page 27 in the Journal. Millette did not report any electrical resistivity measurements. This measurement is rather easy to do so I was surprised when he failed to do this straightforward test. There is a lot of red material of various types in the WTC dust, so one must be careful to make sure it is the same as what we studied, and not some other material.
Harrit et al. mention another version of the chips in the dust, in very thin, stacked, multilayer structures, in addition to the chips examined in the paper. According to Jones, later unpublished analysis confirmed that these chips have the same red and gray layers as the standard bi-layered chips, along with different layers. He states that "thus we are confident this is the same material -- but in MULTI-LAYER form and with another layer, light-gray as explained in our paper." When a blogger discovered a patent in July 2012, described as looking "like the manual for what was found in the WTC dust", Dr. Steven Jones stated that "It is difficult to see how a 'paint' applied to steel could result in such multiple-layered chips as we observed in the WTC dust. Have debunkers even attempted to account for the multiple-layered chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? - Any other study of the red-gray chips which fails to replicate our finding of multiple-layered red-gray chips is seen to be INCOMPLETE at best." And having read Millette´s report, Jones reminds 'debunker' Oystein that ”Millette does not mention them.”

 Kevin Ryan has also concluded that Millette´s supposed refutation of their paper may have been invalid from the start, because Millette is most likely not testing the same material: "Steel primer paints must be resistant to fire and withstand temperatures well over 700 C, so we know that the diversionary claims about primer paint are not true...Millettte’s samples “ashed” at or below 400 C and therefore are not only not red/gray chips (which ignite at 430 C and form spheres identical to those from thermitic reactions) but are also not primer paint from the WTC. But he pretty much admits that."

Commenting on Millette's report, [which BTW has not been peer-reviewed and published] One of Harrit´s co-authors, Dr. Frank Legge. Dr. Legge, who holds a PhD in chemistry, has stated that:
...The existence of elemental aluminium in the red chips is proven by the formation of the microspheres in the DSC, largely iron. What else can start to rip the oxygen out of iron oxide at below 400 deg C, then have a runaway temperature increase at least to the melting point of iron? Those who dispute this on the grounds that oxygen was present, and that the energy came from the combustion of organic material, must provide an explanation for why such special conditions are required in a blast furnace to produce iron. The idea that you could heat a little kaolin and coke and iron oxide to a mere 400 deg C and see it suddenly run away and produce molten iron is clearly a fantasy.

This material was largely pulled from a very long article I co-authored that debunks Millette and that ctcole77was informed about on the comments to a video promoting the Basile study, ctcole77 was told to, "address the links I included in the video description or get lost." On that note, DEBUNK THIS!!!

Here is another blog post regarding troll ctcole77.

Update, response from ctcole77:
But you still give 911 twoofer excuses!
What part of NO ALUMINUM = FAKE THERMITE don't you understand?
"The journal editor-in-chief caved in to political pressure and resigned after the paper had been published"
I hope you can offer some EVIDENCE to support this STRAWMAN claim!
Kevin Ryan put evidence of the greatest crime in the history of the world in the mail?
Have you EVER heard a "chain of custody".
Sounds like a Kevin Ryan inside job to me!
"'The journal editor-in-chief caved in to political pressure and resigned after the paper had been published'
I hope you can offer some EVIDENCE to support this STRAWMAN claim!"

Click the link to the words political pressure, that's the evidence. But Millette didn't get any kind of peer-review or publish in a journal, so why are we talking about this? As blog contributor Scootle Royale noted in his article, "Two criticisms of the Harrit et al paper that are no longer valid,"  "Their 'Peer-review!' and 'Chain of custody!' mantras function as sort-of quasi-ad-hominems. Debunkers are more interested in discrediting the research than they are in having a genuine scientific discussion about it." 

 "What part of NO ALUMINUM = FAKE THERMITE don't you understand?"

And yet still it is apparent ctcole77 has not read my article on this subject.

Part IV: The Elemental Aluminum. So, how does Dr. Millette justify the lack of replication? He essentially states that further testing is unnecessary because there is "no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite." Millette claims that the plates of silicon and aluminum inside the chips are kaolin, which is a clay material that happens to be a common ingredient in paints. But as we have previously noted, Millette is probably not studying the same material as Harrit et al. - and in this case Millette may have found kaolin because he is focusing on the paint chips also present in the dust, despite Kevin Ryan´s specific warning (see part III). Kaolin plates may look very similar to coated aluminum platelets, but Millette finds kaolin plates as thin as 6 nm while Harrit et al. report consistent platelets "approximately 40 nm thick." Millette and his sponsors should have known that they could expect to find the aluminum in the correct chips hidden inside a protective coating based on silicon. They have failed to read the excellent references that Harrit et al. cite, including this one which explains that the coating is "essential to protect aluminum nanopowder.." and that it "leads to better dispersion...and more uniform mixing." The protective layer not only promotes efficiency, it also prevents air-oxidation and humidity from deactivating the elemental aluminum, which explains how the chips could remain active for so many years.

Harrit et al. agree that their chips contain aluminum and silicon together in the same space, but how do they determine whether or not the two chemicals are separate or chemically bound together as kaolin? As we note in Part II, when you compare the signals for Al/Si before and after ignition, you see that the peaks no longer have the same ratio after ignition and that the aluminum is relatively depleted, which is not consistent with a compound. And the team discovered that MEK paint-solvent induces swelling in their chips that segregates the silicon from the aluminum, which proves that they are not chemically bound together, so the plates in their chips are not kaolin. This is confirmed with chemical analysis and clear visual representations, but the "debunkers" ignore this important result. They claim that the main chips studied (chips "a to d" depicted in fig.7) are LaClede primer-paint that contains kaolin, and that the MEK chip is another type of paint (Tnemec) that does not have kaolin. Adam Taylor notes in his March 2011 article that the source for this MEK hand-wave is Sunstealer´s March 2011 post where he announces that the XEDS spectrum for the MEK chip (fig.14) looks very similar to the spectrum for Tnemec primer-paint. But as Taylor explains, the XEDS spectrum for the MEK chip represents the unwashed and contaminated surface, while the spectra for the other chips represent clean surfaces. The contaminants happen to make the unwashed MEK chip look like Tnemec, but Sunstealer´s rationale is essentially pretending that there is no contamination. ScootleRoyale´s excellent March 2012 article also demolishes Sunstealer´s premise for this theory, because the unwashed surface of all the studied chips had a spectrum similar to the unwashed MEK chip according to one of the authors of the study, including the chips featured in the paper (in figure 7). ScootleRoyale also demonstrates to Oystein how untenable the MEK hand-wave is by noting the fact that the MEK solvent does not dissolve or soften the chip, unlike confirmed Tnemec chips: "The reason Harrit et al. soaked a chip in MEK was to compare the result to Tnemec primer!"

Talboo and Weathers also demonstrate in their May 2011 article that Sunstealer´s MEK Hand-wave is an obvious failure because there is no elemental aluminum in Tnemec, only aluminum bound to calcium. Tnemec also contains zinc, but the MEK chip only has Zn and Ca as surface contaminants which disappear after the wash in the MEK. Talboo and Weathers respond to Oystein´s objections to Taylor´s article, including his claim that Harrit et al. simply could not register Zn and Ca with their equipment settings for the recorded spectra after the MEK soak. Unfortunately for Oystein, his fellow JREF´er has debunked his claim and confirmed that Harrit´s equipment would have registered the Zn and the Ca. Talboo and Weathers also note that Dr. Farrer debunks Oystein´s claim that they mislabeled Zn as sodium(Na). According to Farrer, the sodium "peak that is found in fig 18 was confirmed by the absence of the Zn k-alpha peak at 8.637keV (and yes, the same exact spot was analyzed at a beam energy of 20kV and the Zn k-alpha peak is still not present)." Farrer goes on to say that "while it is true that the Na k-alpha peak (1.04keV) overlaps the Zn L-alpha (1.012keV), it is pretty simple to confirm which element is present."

After soaking the MEK chip, Harrit et al. focus on an area with a lot of aluminum to figure out if there is elemental aluminum present. They confirm the presence of elemental aluminum with the XEDS spectrum in figure 17, stating that "a conventional quantification routine" demonstrates "that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio)." Figure 17 also demonstrates that the post-soaking MEK chip has a very strong aluminum signal without any Ca or Si present for bonding, so the MEK chip cannot be Tnemec or LaClede, and the conclusion of elemental aluminum is inescapable. See the articles Listening to Debunker Arguments is Like Watching Paint Dry..., Listening to Debunker Arguments is Like Watching Two Coats of Paint Dry..., Millette Versus Harrit et al: The MEK Test, and Oystein's Contamination Denial for more information, and keep in mind Dr. Jones´s message to Sunstealer et al.:
Look, Oystein, why don't you put a sample of Tnemec primer in MEK and soak it, and see whether it becomes limp (as I say) or remains very hard under forceps? Do debunkers ever do experiments? I say, do the experiment and let us know what you find! Experiments are much more convincing in science than hand-waving arguments.
Denis Rancourt has suggested that the XEDS sample-holder provides the aluminum signal, but Harrit notes that their control experiments prove that "the electron beam couldn’t even penetrate the carbon conductive tab used as substratum..." In other words, "the Al/Mg scaffold was never hit in any of the spectral recordings published in the article." Harrit also mentions that they have unpublished TEM analysis where "the samples were mounted on a copper holder and these measurements also confirm the presence of aluminum." According to Dr. Jones, their unpublished analysis via TEM and XRD is consistent with their previous (MEK test) conclusion of ruling out kaolin, but he notes that the new tests have not resulted in conclusive identification of pure aluminum - According to Jones, the aluminum might be in an amorphous form that is difficult to detect.

Basile plans to introduce one new test method (ESCA small spot technique with argon ion sputter) to directly establish the presence of unbound aluminum. Basile also plans to confirm aluminum by having an independent laboratory repeat the ignition tests, in air and inert atmosphere. He notes in a December 2012 interview (at 37m.55s.) that the chips will most likely also ignite in an inert atmosphere, and that even if they do not, that this test will still reveal any elemental aluminum since it will melt and leave a signature endothermic peak at a certain temperature. ScootleRoyale notes in his March 2012 article that that two of Harrit´s air-ignited samples have an endothermic peak around the 660 degree(C) melting point of aluminum, which is another strong indication of elemental aluminum:
The fact that the chips actually work when ignited is also a very strong indication of elemental aluminum, according to one of Harrit´s co-authors, Dr. Frank Legge. Dr. Legge, who holds a PhD in chemistry, has stated that:
...The existence of elemental aluminium in the red chips is proven by the formation of the microspheres in the DSC, largely iron. What else can start to rip the oxygen out of iron oxide at below 400 deg C, then have a runaway temperature increase at least to the melting point of iron? Those who dispute this on the grounds that oxygen was present, and that the energy came from the combustion of organic material, must provide an explanation for why such special conditions are required in a blast furnace to produce iron. The idea that you could heat a little kaolin and coke and iron oxide to a mere 400 deg C and see it suddenly run away and produce molten iron is clearly a fantasy.

Conspiracy theory FAQ, part 1

Saturday, 10 August 2013
James Rocket
Conspiracy theory FAQ, part 1
When confronted with hard evidence showing government complicity into the september 11th attacks, debunkers and other such apologists will forward a great variety of a-priori arguments that release them from the need to confront this wide ranging body of proof (which would result in uncomfortable cognitive dissonance). The vast majority of these statements generally turn out to have little merit, showing themselves as nothing more than a petty cop-out for a moral coward. Some of the more atypical claims will be featured in this post, and discussed at length to judge their value. Any postings following this one will deal with the remaining pseudo-skeptic arguments, which have more or less been resolved years ago by other members of the truth movement.

The purpose of this series is simply to provide the truth seeker with ready-made ammunition which he can use to fend off the lame a-priori dismissals, and force the opposition to actually look at the evidence that has been amassed. This includes the multiple warning of an impending terrorist attack (which were ignored by bush), the war games and live hijacking drill that obstructed the air defense, and the financial arrangement that took advantage of the chaos, especially the black eagle trust. Anyone who looks at the events of 911 with a half open mind will see that there are terrible flaws with the official story, and a huge number of anomalys that hint not of some garden variety terrorist plot, but a state crime against democracy. First up are two denials that are frequently bandied about on wikipedia.

Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources.
Just because someone says a claim is extraordinary does not make it so. People often label any theories that are contrary to the governments version of events as 'extraordinary', thus implying that the government and its associated media have a monopoly on what is considered reasonable. But claims can only be considered extraordinary if they have no historical precedent. Therefore, all that is needed to show that a theory can be confirmed (with ordinary scientific processes) is to point out a similar case that has happened before. For this, a simple look at the geopolitical affairs of the 1930s will suffice. In a period of just 8 years, the world saw 4 separate false flag attacks (!) used by authoritarian regimes to push their agendas: This includes the manchurian incident, the clash of wal wal, operation gleiwitz, and the shelling of mainila. These incidents are not at all disputed by historians (at least, not by historians who live outside of the implicated nations, where the temptation to white wash history is present): No one has difficulty believing that such crimes could be perpetrated by a mere historical artifact, which they have no personal connection to. The same is not true when ones own nation has been accused of authoring a terrorist attack in the present!

Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
This opinion piece feeds into the larger mind set that establishment types have, with their belief that history is something which cannot be shaped by conscious intent, via the persistent influence of the fog of war or other such mystical phenomenon. They have a characteristic ambivalence towards the notion that much of modern history has been the result of elaborate policys put into place by powerful oligarchs, something which would upset their fragile egos (and the illusions they have about democracy). These academics condemn all such theorys and hypothesis' with the pejorative label of conspiracism. Bruce cumings elaborates on this belief system: "But if conspiracies exist, they rarely move history; they make a difference at the margins from time to time, but with the unforeseen consequences of a logic outside the control of their authors: and this is what is wrong with 'conspiracy theory.' History is moved by the broad forces and large structures of human collectivities."
But power corrupts, and all power corrupts absolutely. The two go inextricably hand in hand, and we may ask these men what barriers can stop a dominant entity from utilising secrecy to implement its policys: Answering this question without contradicting historical records would be quite a feat. That is because any country which becomes a superpower in its specific ficton will eventually wind up playing host to a cast of authoritarian misfits, who use their influence and wealth take control of the national agenda. Humans are social creatures, and the desire to conform to the default viewpoint is a built in feature. When information is distributed to a population in a top down fashion, this makes the entire nation vulnerable to being misled by its leadership caste (whose interests are divorced from those of the common people). Coming out in detraction of the reigning cultures golden cow, therefore, is a difficult and unrewarding task, one which got only more complicated with the advent of nationalism during the industrial era. Countless times have we seen men oppose various ideologies and religions, only to be greeted with viscous persecution by the establishment, whose tenets were later overturned and falsified decades or centurys after the fact.
Supposing that we even have
a free media to begin with...

Those who claim the WTCs were destroyed via a thermite demolition have ignored the fact that this substance can't inflict real damage to structural members.
Assertions like these seek to raise doubt about the validity of a collapse initiated by thermitic materials (which work much more silently than explosives) by claiming their ability to degrade steel  is very limited. The fact that this notion is false in its entirety didn't seem to stop the 911 debunkers, who seized upon it with a vigour that is rarely seen outside of a funny farm. But explosive experts have known for decades that the thermite reaction IS capable of melting through steel members, especially when its spray of molten iron is harnessed via a directed funnel. The world was reintroduced to this reality in late 2010, when jonathan cole (a graduate from the university of connecticut) released a video documenting his experiments with thermite.



Cole, with a background in civil engineering, had confirmed the nature of the work being carried out at the combustion institute since the 1960s. By using something he called 'a thermitic box cutter', cole was able to slice through a steel I-beam with only 2 lbs of thermite. The beam in question appeared to be a W 6 x 16, with a known weight of 16 pounds per linear foot. His results are consistent with the estimates made by NIST, who asserted that 'approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel.' So with a large box column weighing approximately 1500 pounds per linear foot, the amount of thermite required to make the cut may be around 187 lbs. Note, this is surprisingly close to the 153 lbs of tamped TNT needed to sever a large box column.

Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives? To tip people off?
Because the WTCs were going to demolished in front of a live television audience (which entailed huge risks for the perpetrators), their collapse would need to be brought about in a highly unconventional manner, so as to perpetuate the notion that impact + fires were responsible. This entailed removing most of the typical giveaways to a controlled demolition, such as the obvious, sequential explosions, collapse initiated from the bottom, a small rubble footprint, etc. This arrangement would have also had to proceed in total secrecy, with the explosive and pyrotechnic devices installed in a manner that would protect them from aircraft debris and fires (no small feat even for members of the military industrial complex!). Given these requirements, the best way to destroy the twin towers was to use a two stage demolition process.

The first stage would involve silently cutting all (or nearly all) of the 16 large and 31 small core columns on the floors impacted by the planes. This is a task to which thermitic box cutters are well suited towards. Arranged in banks of perhaps 10-12 per corner (and 47 per floor) of the building, they could be set off in a precision sequence via radio repeaters safely installed into reinforced crevices. And though thermite burns with a ferocious intensity that is capable of melting any thickness of steel, the noise they emit is entirely insignificant, at least compared to the 18.5 lbs of RDX -part of a 53 lbs shaped charge- that would be needed to sever a large core column. Ignited more than 900 feet above street level, there would have been little sign of the box cutters deadly presence, aside from the pool of molten steel flowing away from WTC 2 before its collapse (which may have been the result of a premature ignition from a thermite bank). With the core columns cut on multiple levels, the impact floors were suddenly robbed of their structural integrity, and would effectively cave in on themselves, setting the upper section of the towers into motion against everything beneath it.
Imagine a dump truck colliding with a sand
berm at 100 kmh, multiplied  by 5 orders
of magnitude, and you will begin to have an
idea of how incredibly violent this event was.

The second stage would ensue shortly after the first, taking advantage of a collapse that converted a tremendous amount of gravitational energy into kinetic energy, resulting in an extremely destructive interaction that pulverised concrete and crumpled steel members. Left to its own devices, however, this piledriver effect would (probably) not be able to produce a global collapse: Everything above the 92nd floor of WTC 1 -and the 77th floor of WTC 2- would cease to exist, and many, many floors beneath them would be gutted by falling debris. But the lower foundations would remain fully intact, as would the core and perimeter columns all the way up to the impact site. The buildings would be preserved by immense networks of interconnected steel beams and columns. Thus, in order to guarantee a total collapse, these resistance points needed to be broken with explosive charges. Under the cover provided by the noise and dust of the gravity collapse, the second stage of demolition could proceed unnoticed to anyone more than a block away from the site. With just a handful of explosive charges placed on all the floors beneath the impact site (probably hidden inside elevator shafts), the twin towers last structural redoubts would be methodically smashed from the top down.

How would they be able to plant enough thermite to perfectly raze these three mammoth buildings, without anyone taking notice beforehand?
The best way to proceed with such an operation is to conceal all suspicious equipment inside ordinary tool boxes, and to only bring them out when working in confined spaces (or in areas that have been closed off by security, to enable the crew to work in privacy). A single explosive charge should be attached to each column juncture, then covered beneath a solid protective casing. Assuming that this mount could be emplaced with just 2 man hours of labour, then rigging the four column junctures that typically reside on each floor would take a minimum of 8 man hours. If this was done all the way from the impact floors to street level, then that amounts to 368 charges for WTC 1 and 308 charges for WTC 2 (and 1352 man hours to install them in both towers). Therefore, even with a quadrupling of the required man hours -which is reasonable, given that most of a demolition crews time is spent with the actual wiring- this suggests that only 5400 man hours total are required to prepare the twin towers for destruction! Theoretically, eight individuals working 40 hour weeks could have the job completed in just over four months.

One of the web joists (not quite
the same as a column juncture)

If the WTCs really were destroyed by a controlled demolition, most of the worlds architects and engineers would have come forward and raised hell with the authoritys!

This is obviously not the case. An in-depth examination of the scientific literature regarding the twin towers collapses reveals that virtually none of them are based on a close observation of the visual archives. They are abstract mathematical models which use random assumptions to come to conclusions about factor x or y. Such insular processes are effectively divorced from reality, and tell a truth seeker very little about what happened to these 110 story structures: Someone who does not understand the unique features of this collapse (or posses an affinity for regression analysis) will have NO ABILITY to determine whether or not CD played a role. Academic institutes of all shapes and sizes, ranging from NIST to AE911Truth, have been guilty of a systemic failure to observe the actual behaviour of the twin towers (and building 7) prior to and during their collapse. They perpetuate a false dichotomy of progressive collapse vs controlled demolition, failing to come to terms with the peripheral issues that could falsify their case.

They proceed with an obvious confirmation bias in mind, neglecting to consider that the truth may lie somewhere in between their pre-determined conclusions. AE911Truth is responsible for disseminating the false notion that steel framed buildings cannot experience a global collapse without the aid of explosives. NIST is responsible for grossly distorting the mechanical forces acting on the WTCs, and for failing to document the material flow that defined each destruction event. The basic standards of the scientific method have been discarded in favour of abstract models and poor observations, which in turn were regurgitated to the public in the form of sound bytes via the mass media. If there was ever a time when the 'experts' should have stepped in to straighten things out, this was it. Sadly, that is not what actually happened. On both sides, negligence fed by false confidence has snowballed into something that is now labelled as 'professional dialogue regarding the WTCs collapse', which has now been framed into an issue concerning only whether explosives were present or not!

If the attacks truly were orchestrated by the government, someone would have talked! Even if all of the conspirators had kept silent, there must have been dozens of people on the sidelines who knew, and they couldn't ALL have been assassinated!
That is correct. If anything, there may have been well in excess of a hundred people who knew sensitive details about the September 11th attacks, weeks or months before they actually took place. At a lower level, such as the feds 2000-2001 monitoring of terrorist activity, some CIA and FBI agents actually did catch wind of the plot, and tried to warn their superiors. The story of susan lindauer is one example among many. Debunkers may argue that this is only a niche example which doesn't invalidate their wider point. Again, they are correct. The evidence pointing towards MIHOP is generally more circumstantial than that which exists for LIHOP. No one has come forward to release information that directly expresses truly incriminating activitys in the months proceeding the 911 attacks (I.E, no rigging of the WTCs with bombs, no modifications of jumbo jets for remote control, etc). That is not entirely surprising. New counter-intelligence techniques devised in the 1960s have given the CIA and other agencys a strong ability to suppress whistle blowers, via trauma based operant conditioning. As soon as a potential leaker is identified, they will be subjected to extensive background checks, and placed under very intrusive surveillance in order to gain personal information from them. Many technologys are available to spying agencys nowadays, including laser microphones, phone tapping, computer bugging, etc.

All sources of communication are surveyed constantly by the highest technology available and a great deal of the results are recorded, auto-transcribed and processed by computer to show statistical associations (some of which goes to a live ear if close spying is underway). Once enough information has been assembled to create a 'criminal profile', the director in charge will make a decision as to the best approach needed to gain the whistle blowers compliance. This sometimes involves black-mail and bribery. More often, however, a campaign of terror is waged against the individual, where they are subjected to constant and unrelenting harassment, raising their stress level to an intolerable level that not only destroys their sense of security, but interferes with normal sleep and work related activities. Through weeks of gang stalking, the whistle blowers daily routine will be irreparably damaged, and their sanity will be stretched to the breaking point. Sometimes, the aim of this harassment campaign is to get the individual to release their information in a partial or disorderly manner, where it can be picked apart and discredited by cointelpro assets. Mostly, however, they are given a chance to end the torment by accepting a list of conditions which they must abide by, on the threat of instantaneous retaliation (in proportion to the severity of their infraction) if they do not.

How is it that a government which couldn't even plant WMDs in iraq could stage something as massively complex as a false flag attack on the WTCs and pentagon?

Determining the 'competence' of an organisation is easy. Simply look at the deeds the US has carried out in the last decade. Notice the difference between what they say, and what they actually do. When an institute persists in taking a course of action which does not fulfil its ostensible goals, we might reasonably posit that they show signs of incompetence, and an inability to self evaluate. However, when they do not stop pursuing that agenda even at massive losses to themselves, the question of incompetence is brushed aside by concerns about their state of mind. One possible answer is raised by albert einstein: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results." The other answer, however, is more sinister. As said by stefan molyneux: "If an organization seems to be continually failing to achieve its stated mission – but refuses to alter its actions – then clearly it is simply achieving another, unstated mission." With this one single insight, all of the odditys associated with the global war on terror (as well as the war on drugs, poverty, etc) can be reconciled. For every official proclamation a government agency may make regarding some ambitious new campaign, there will almost invariably be an unofficial motive that is not being disclosed to the public.

When taking into account all of its secret sponsors and policy decisions, the bush administration is seen for what it really is: A neoconservative platform that was successfully able to institute most of the goals outlined in the project for a new american century. Even so, the tendency to use mission statements to conceal more unwholesome goals is widely known among the worlds top intellectuals. With that being the case, you have to ask what benefit the bush administration would have gained from staging a false discovery of WMDs in iraqi territory? Few people with an IQ above 100 would take this development in stride. Indeed, some would see this news as a shocking confirmation of americas (long suspected) corruptness. So, would easing the consciences of the dumbed-down public alleviate the consequences of alienating the politically awake? Unlikely. And again, the purpose of the false WMD scare was not to provide an overriding justification for an intervention into iraq, or any other country (thats what they had 911 for): The point was only to get the neocons foot in the door. Afterwards, a continual presence in iraqs vast oil fields could be maintained through mission creep, and vigorous stigmatisation of those officials who wanted to 'cut and run.'

Even the president himself was not above participating in this transparent agenda, using his rank to pressure dissenters into submission. In summary, the key to explaining the iraq episode is the fact that people are much more willing to believe in an incompetent government, rather than one which is deliberately malevolent. But once you accept the premise that the bush administration is a highly effective, morally corrupt association, and that their actual goals in any endeavour are never what they publicly claim, it becomes clear that 'incompetence' is nothing more than a comforting charade which is used to cloak evil policys in. The men in office are able to get a surprising amount of mileage out of this little trick, since american citizens have a very high tolerance for political failure, although not with silly hot topic issues pertaining to sexual orientation, gender, religion, or race. Incompetence also lends itself to perpetuating the left-right slave paradigm, particularly when opposition partys gain browny points by pointing out the obvious, and saying how much better things would be if the current president was kicked out of office (to be swiftly replaced by their own candidate, of course...).

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Chemical Engineer Mark Basile and Other Professionals Speak Out for ReThink 911

To help Mark Basile finish the work he spoke of doing in the video, visit:

Truth and Accountability for TWA Flight 800 Plane Crash Petition

To: Deborah Hersman, Chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

TWA Flight 800 was a commercial 747 aircraft that exploded in midair and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean in 1996. Eyewitnesses reported seeing a missile, or some kind of streaking object, in the sky at the same time as the explosion. However, the FBI still insisted that the crash was initiated by a mechanical failure and prevented any eyewitness from testifying otherwise.

Many of the investigators from the original National Transportation Safety [NTSB] board investigation have now broken their silence; they are saying that they didn’t find any evidence in the wreckage to suggest that the explosive forces came from inside the center fuel tank.

All signs point to a government cover-up and we want answers.

That’s why family members of crash victims, former airline crash investigators, and concerned scientists have banded together and submitted a request that you reopen the case for investigation.

The original investigation into the crash of TWA Flight 800 was seriously undermined and led to a "probable cause" of the crash that is not supported by the forensic evidence.

Evidence was altered and tainted by FBI investigators (including Ricky Hahn) as well as by David Mayer of the NTSB. The CIA's Randy Tauss oversaw the production of a fraudulent animation to discredit eyewitnesses that members of his team knew were fraudulent. The NTSB's own expert aviation accident investigators, as well as other NTSB-approved parties to the investigation, were not able to properly carry out or complete their work.

We're asking for you help to make sure that the six former members of the official crash investigation who have blown the whistle to expose major malfeasance need your support. These investigators, who directly handled the forensic evidence, can also correct the record on what happened to the plane.

Those who engaged in tainting and altering evidence and those who engaged in perpetrating a fraud on the American people to cover up the actual cause of the crash should be identified and held accountable--no matter who they are or how high up in the government they may have been at the time.

Because so many people came, and are coming forward to blow the whistle on the original crash investigation, with your support, enough pressure can be brought to bear to reopen the TWA Flight 800 investigation.

When that happens, a line in the sand will finally have been drawn warning those in government who would corrupt investigations or carry out illegal activities that they will be held accountable--no matter how long it takes.