Wayback Machine captures article debunking claims of nano-thermite found in WTC dust

The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20171001214046/https://willyloman.wordpress.
co…
American Everyman
More Bad Science Surrounding the “Nano-Thermite”

Red Herring
Posted on August 23, 2009 by willyloman

by Scott Creighton
Another AE911Truth member has come out with what he claims is video evidence of the presence of
“nanothermite” in the demolition process of the World Trade Centers. It is surprising that AE911Truth (an
organization made up primarily of engineers and scientists) would be promoting this video by David
Chandler because it is an embarrassing collection of unsupported conclusions and really bad science. It so
obvious, anyone can pick it apart. Unfortunately, I think that might be it’s purpose.
This “nanothermite” track that the Truth Movement has been on since the publication of the
Harrit/Jones/Roberts paper
(https://web.archive.org/web/20171001214046/http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm) has
been increasingly dishonest since the very beginning and this is just another example of how
“nanothermite” is blowing up our movement.
Which is, of course, the only thing this “super secret” pyrotechnic COULD blow up…
What they proposed in their paper was that they had found “active thermetic material” that utilized “nano
technology” in the dust from the WTC demolitions. In later discussions, they (Jones and Harrit at least)
have estimated the presence of at least 10 tons of this unexploded material exists in the dust that was
scattered around New York on Sept. 11th, 2001.
There has been a great deal of reasoned evaluation of the paper itself and the results of those evaluations
have not been positive.
For the most part there is a a great deal of proof out there that the “red/grey chips” that Jones et al based
their paper on, are in fact a rust inhibiting primer paint with a Kaolinite base.
“We can also say that because Kaolinite is present and that it is embedded in a Carbon based matrix
with Rhomboidal Fe2O3 that a more likely explanation for the red material is paint.” JREF
(https://web.archive.org/web/20171001214046/http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?
p=4607894&postcount=1694)
Now this twist has forced the Jones/Harrit/Roberts crew to slightly alter their story-line. Now they are
suggesting that this primer paint that was used in the towers was actually the super-secret explosive nano-
thermite and that the big plan was to run around spraying the underside of the floor systems with
“explosive paint”.
This is completely ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as Jim Hoffman’s “1.8 million ceiling tile bombs
(https://web.archive.org/web/20171001214046/https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/serious-
problems-with-jim-hoffmans-a-hypothetical-blasting-scenario-makes-his-recent-essay-far-from-
plausable/)” theory… (almost). There is no way to control an even dispersal of paint on the underside of a
floor system that is crowded with trusses, transverse trusses, cables, beams, and various other piping, AC
ducts, ect… Without an even dispersal of the explosive, there is also no way of having a predictable
outcome when it is ignited. Also, when paint is atomized to spray, fine particles of the dust dries and then
falls in unexpected places. This dust would also be explosive. There is no way that the experts who
designed the destruction of the Twin Towers would spray “explosive paint” on every single floor of the
World Trade Center. It’s ridiculous.
Now if you want a more scientific evaluation of just some of the problems with the Jones/Harrit/Roberts
paper, try this for starters;
Jones investigates only the red and gray chips and not the entire sample. He has a limited sample size.
The chips have a laminar nature which suggests a coating or adhesive but he rules out paint by
comparing the effect of MEK on some unknown paint and comparing it to the effect on the red chips.
This is either incompetence or scientific misconduct and fraud.
He sees that there is an organic fraction but does not analyze it. He uses DSC to measure exotherms
but does it in a stream of air so he cannot tell the difference between a reaction and plain combustion of
components but claims thermitic reaction. His EDAX shows silicon, aluminum, and oxygen in the same
areas of the particle but he ignores this congruency; aluminosilicates are clays and are often fillers in
paints and coatings. He does not extract a larger sample of the red and gray chips with a more
agressive solvent, such as hot DMF or DMF-DMSO which would allow analysis of individual
components.
His conclusion that this is a thermitic material is not justified based on the data. JREF
(https://web.archive.org/web/20171001214046/http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?
postid=4610083#post4610083)
Jones, Harrit, and Roberts have not submitted their paper, with samples, to independent labs for
verification. They have not completed the discovery process by scheduling a presentation of their findings
to a group of qualified scientists and allowing for educated debate and evaluation of their findings in the
public sphere. Their paper was published in a journal that has questionable academic credentials, and was
even cited as offering publication of a non-sense paper written by a computer. Harrit himself has
connections to one of the peer reviewers used by the publishing house, who has subsequently resigned as a
peer reviewer from that house. The editor in chief of the publishing house quit after she was told about the
paper saying that the paper had no merit and shouldn’t have been published by her journal. She also said
that the paper was published without her knowledge and seems to have been published for purely
“political reasons”.
Aside from all of these massive issues with the paper itself, there is also the question of integrity that cannot
be dismissed.
In a recent interview with Russia Today, Harrit calls for an investigation into other explosive residues in the
dust found at the World Trade Center.
We have not found remains or traces of conventional explosives. Actually, we’ve suggested and
recommended to NIST, which is the National Institute of Standards and Technology, that they should
look for remains or traces of explosives, and they have refused to do that every time. They have not
investigated it. Harrit
(https://web.archive.org/web/20171001214046/http://www.russiatoday.com/Politics/2009-07-
09/Did_nano-thermite_take_down_the_WTC.html)
This is also recommended in their paper as well.
The trouble is, as they were writing the paper, I myself suggested they test for trace elements of
conventional explosives in the dust at the World Trade Center. Gregg Roberts of AE911Truth refused to do
so.
“However, our detractors could be counted on to do their best to use a negative result against us for P.R.
purposes. They would say that we have a non-scientific belief, since a negative outcome from an experiment
fails to shake it. Thus, the potential costs of doing what you’re proposing and coming up empty-handed, or
worse, must be considered.” Roberts
The idea that Roberts would refuse to do a test for these materials that are commonly used in the
demolition industry based purely on a “P.R.” standpoint sent chills down my spine. Here is a “scientist” in
a critically important investigation, refusing to do what should have been the very FIRST scientific test run
on this material, for no better reason than the results may reflect negatively on their “movement”?
What an amazing statement… BUT THEN, to actually include the statement in their paper that they
think SOMEONE ELSE should run these very same tests that they REFUSED to run themselves, is an
outrage and should send massive red-flags up around the entire 911 Truth Movement.
Later, in a email exchange with Jones himself, even more dishonesty

(https://web.archive.org/web/20171001214046/https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/some-
straight-forward-questions-for-steven-jones-on-the-subject-of-his-research/)…
Then Jones even goes so far as to instruct Truth advocates as to what they should say
(https://web.archive.org/web/20171001214046/https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/the-good-
prof-jones-now-tells-us-what-to-think/) and think about his new paper, going so far as to suggest any
critique of his work is invalid unless published in a vanity press like his was.
Ever since this paper came out, the level of dishonesty coming from it’s creators has been something
remarkable to behold.
Now we have this terribly flawed video coming out from David Chandler, also associated with Gregg
Roberts’ AE911Truth, which features the “nanothermite” theory as “proven fact”.
Chandler tries to suggest that the video he shows proves that nanothermite was used in the demolition in
two ways; 1. white smoke coming from the debris 2. a piece of the falling debris changing course mid
flight could ONLY be caused by nanothermite still attached to the piece exploded and caused the change
in direction.
These assumptions of Chandlers are ridiculously flawed.
His conclusions are simply wrong.
White Smoke is present in the demolition of the towers, that much is correct. But Chandler goes on to say
that this PROVES it was nano-thermite because when thermite burns, it produces a white smoke. That
much may be correct as far as the color of the smoke in a thermite reaction is concerned, but for him to
omit the fact that OTHER explosive materials ALSO emit a white smoke upon detonation, is scientifically
disingenuous.
Chandler also suggests that the trails being left by the pieces of debris falling to the ground, prove that the
nanothermite is still buring on them.
Does that mean he thinks that super-secret “nanothermite” was used in the recent demolition of the
building in China?
Nanothermite here too?
(https://web.archive.org/web/20171001214046/https://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/china-
demo.jpg)
Nanothermite here too?
Here we have a very similar colored dust trails following the pieces at least part of the way to the ground.
There, of course, is no “nanothermite” burning on these pieces. So his conclusion that the dust trails prove
a burning nanothermite reaction is flawed at best.
The second piece of evidence from this video of his deals with a piece of material falling during the demo
that appears at least to change direction during it’s fall. This, Chandler states, can ONLY be explained by
nanothermite exploding on the surface of that piece of debris and forcing it to change direction.
There are a hundred ways to explain the change in direction of this piece of material. The two most
obvious that I can think of would be that this piece of material is attached to another piece via some of the
1000s of miles of cables that were present in the Towers, and that cable was pulled taught between this
piece of debris and another, and THAT forced it to change direction…
OR… the most obvious… another piece of debris hit this one mid-flight, and thus changed it’s trajectory.
In fact, if you look at the video, you can clearly see another streaming piece of debris right about this one
travel downward and look as if it hit this one just as it changes directions.
So in fact, there are many other possible reasons why that piece of debris changed directions that make a
lot more sense that some small bit of super secret nanothermite that just HAPPENED to wait to ignite
while in mid-flight (one thing Chandler doesn’t explain is HOW this material ignited on the piece of falling
debris. What exactly would be the ignition energy to cause that to happen?)
I hate to say it, but it looks to me like this is a desperation move put out by AE911Truth (Roberts) to try
and offset the serious problems with the nanothermite theory being exposed by many different sources.
At every turn Jones, Harrit, and Roberts have been dishonest about this discovery of theirs. When will they
present their findings before an audience of qualified scientists and debate their proofs in an open forum?
At what point will they submit their findings and their samples to independent labs for confirmation of
their results?
When will they produce a credible video of the “burning red/grey chips” that is really the foundation of
their work? When will they submit a sample of these chips so that others can perform similar tests to
verify their results?
When will they run the tests they were asked to run, and they themselves suggest others perform?
This video evaluation by Chandler does nothing to advance the cause of 9/11 Truth.
Filed under: 001 911 Writing, 002 Scott's 911 Writing,Advertisements

911 investigations, 911 Scholarly Articles, Scott
Creighton | Tagged: nano-thermite, Neils Harrit disinfo specialist, Scott Creighton |
« GOP senators: Torture investigation threatens ’security of all Americans’ Who is Joseph Moshe? »
128 Responses
Jan, on August 23, 2009 at 11:38 am said:

I see that too! Something blew into it…. they crashed into each other.
Reply
relament, on August 23, 2009 at 4:05 pm said:

Willyloman, Are you going to address Friday’s Alex Jones show with “Chris”, AR15 gun rights
activist??
Reply
willyloman, on August 23, 2009 at 4:38 pm said:
I didn’t know he had done a show with “Chris”… do you have a link?
Reply

ah, nevermind, I found it on Youtube.
While I am listening to it, ponder this…
“Chris” again, doesn’t give his name.. he want’s his rights, but he won’t give his name? He goes to a
rally with a gun strapped to him like a piece of a costume, but he won’t give his name?
“Chris” used to be a member of the republican party, and now he is showing up at rallies with an AR-
15 strapped to him… because he is mad about giving away free healthcare? Where was “Chris” and
his gun when they were giving away free trillions to the bankers? Where was “Chris” and his gun
when they were illegally invading other nations based on lies?
It’s one thing to believe in the 2nd amendment, which I believe is our right as well… but it’s another to
show up at a political rally with an AR-15… especially at one where the president is going to be. That’s
just stupid. Or, it’s an attempt to frighten the opposition (terrorism) or… it’s some kind of pre-planned
stunt for either publicity or propaganda…
Oh yeah. On Weds. down here in Tampa, a cop was killed by a guy who was ex-military, ex-cop, and
who also just happened to have in his possession, an AR-15….
Reply

Ok, I tried to watch the whole thing, but I can’t stand AJ…
when he started mocking people with that high pitched voice of his in the second video, that was pretty
much it for me…
AJ also seemed to hint that the MSM may “find something in Chris’ background and try to blow it out
of proportion” … I wonder what that is going to be all about.
Anyway, what I said, I still stand by. It was clearly staged. The gun was clearly strapped to his back
and his pants leg. The weapon is the exact same type used by Phoenix Police tactical squad…
Whether “Chris” was a dupe being used in this manner or he is an agent provocateur, is pretty much
irrelevant. He may have the best intentions in the world and still be used. AJ’s interview gets us no
closer to understanding what was behind this staged event.
The fact that he shows up at a rally for healthcare with a gun strapped to his back isn’t going to “save
the 2nd amendment”. I mean, that is just laughable.
If anything, it has simply supplied the MSM with an example of why we should “CHANGE” the
constitution.
Reply

I appreciate your response willyloman. I didn’t listen to the whole show either. I got to the third video.
But I’ll give it another shot and report to you any difference of opinion. Otherwise, your argument
seems very reasonable. Thanks.
Reply
willyloman, on August 24, 2009 at 8:17 am said:

Motivated by your courage to suffer through AJ’s ego and finish watching the video, I decided I would
do the same.
In the 5th video, at the 3:20 or so mark, “Chris” had this to say…
“You’re only as free as you are willing to pull the trigger.”
Right. Got it. Not only that, but he says that Ron Paul is the only honest politician… ever. Ever. Now if
that isn’t blind hero worship, I don’t know what is.
I don’t care about his politics. Really I don’t. The guy is young. He thinks he has figured something out.
Good for him.
But if he thinks that we are only free because someone somewhere has a gun, I don’t think he truly
understands the nature of political struggle. And he certainly doesn’t understand the history. Of this
country. Of many Latin American countries. Of Ghandi. MLK. Woman’s Sufferage Movement. Trade
Union movement. Mandella’s struggle against Apartheid in South Africa.
Sure, we have a right to own guns. We need to keep that right and use weapons when we have to. But
we have to be smart about it and know when to use them and when running around at political rallies
with them strapped on our backs is just a thinly veiled threat… either that, or a psyops trick to be used
by the MSM to undermine the very rights he claims as the reason he was there in the first place.
Reply
nobodysaysBOO, on August 24, 2009 at 10:01 am said:

anybody ever scrape paint off steel?
You can wire brush it off and the steel ,then it starts to rust, so you paint or primer before it rusts,
to remove paint from steel and only leave 10 tons of chips in the dust is NOT a normal process!
How do you get 10 tons of paint dust off falling steel and concrete?
Why have no blast marks been found on the outside spandrells?
Reply

Boo
Take a look at this. This is what a linear shaped charge did when someone used it to remove the
flange from a steel I-Beam.
picture
I don’t see a lot of blast marks on this either. Pitting on the other parts of the beam I see. Pitting of
steel is also mentioned in the FEMA report and the NIST reports both.
Reply
Thanks again willyloman. All of AJ was difficult, and I’m recovering now. Your analysis holds up well.
“Chris” is very suspicious.
Reply
steven andresen, on August 24, 2009 at 8:13 pm said:

Scott,
Is this an article that exhibits the problems you’re trying to warn us about?
http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-8858-we-all-fall-down.html?current_page=1
It apparently discusses Prof. Jones’ work.
Reply

In some ways, yes Steve. There were also some things brought up in the article that I found rather
revealing as well. One thing is that people keep saying that Jones was fired or forced into retirement
by BYU yet this article clearly shows that Jones was allowed to take an early retirement. He gets
paid to continue his research and promotion of 9/11 truth issues (mainly the
“thermite/nanothermite” theory) by the same university that is closely associated with Dick
Cheney… and they even gave Cheney an honorary degree a little while ago. That’s just a little odd,
don’t you think? If he was onto the “big secret” don’t you think at some time they would make
things just a little harder for the man? Or at least a little less comfortable?
I would also like to toss in there that the president of the university that still sends Jones checks as
well as honored Cheney with and Honarary Doctorate in 2007, received the Presidential Medal of
Freedom from President Bush in 2004.
Then Bush met with the BYU president, Hinckley, again in 2006… a very cozy relationship
between BYU and the Bush White House.
Finally, on this topic. This is a quote from Hinckley in 2003. Now remember, Hinckley was the
beloved president of BYU… buildings are named after him. I want you to try and understand how
this statement from Hinckley juxtaposes with Steven Jones still getting checks from BYU while
supposedly trying to prove Bush blew up the towers…
“In April 2003, Hinckley gave a speech in which he addressed the ongoing war in Iraq. He said, “…
as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders. They have access to
greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally,” adding, “Furthermore, we
are a freedom-loving people, committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy.” He also
noted that “It may even be that [the Lord] will hold us responsible if we try to impede or
hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and
repression.” Hinckley, 2003
Now I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound like someone who would be all about writing
Jones checks while he was looking for evidence to bring Bush and Cheney down…
Just my opinion.
In another part of the article they mention the fact that Jones’ homespun demenor drops pretty
quickly when he is challenged on his research by other Truth activists. This I have seen for myself,
but certainly not like the person quoted in the article.
As far as his religion is concerned, I don’t really think that that was any kind of backhanded slur
against him; it is Utah.
Jones himself seems pleased with the article. The first time I read it, he had posted it on 9/11Bolgger
and was reaping the praise from the echo chamber over there.
All I could think of was it must just be more publicity for his new DVD he has for sale. Nothing says
“reputable science” like “DVD for SALE”.
Reply
steven andresen, on August 25, 2009 at 9:23 am said:

will,
So, you are saying there’s something fishy about the “thermite” or super powerful special explosive
residues in the building dust? And, as I’ve read, I tyhink, you suspect this story covers up research that
should be done on more likely explosives in the building dusts?
I thought one had to come up with something more powerful than regular explosives in order to
account for the way the building was pulverized which, according to the critics of the official story,
could not have come down by just the fires and the impacts, but apparently, also without special
preparations being made with explosives.
Do I have the questions correct?
Reply
willyloman, on August 25, 2009 at 10:19 am said:

Steve;
Yes. I think this entire “thermite, thermate, super-thermite, nanothermite” track we have been led
down was always just a distraction. From the very beginning.
If you are going to conduct an investigation, official or otherwise, of a suspected controlled

demolition, the very FIRST thing you should test for is the presence of the high explosive residues
that are commonly used in the industry.
Not only did FEMA, NIST, RJ LEE, and the 9/11 Commission fail to do that simple test… so did our
glorious leader, Steven Jones. Not only did he not test for it (after suggesting someone else should)
but he and his fellow “researchers” REFUSED to do so.
Why the hell is that?
The “iron rich spheres” that Jones has been theorizing since day one to be “thermite” residue, is in
fact, the missing trusses and floor pans of the Trade Centers. “Iron rich” is just a way of saying that
they were predominately made of Iron… well, the trusses were made of High Strength Low Allow
steel which is mainly “iron” with carbon, sulfur, silicon, and other materials mixed in.
all of these materials were listed in various reports on the “iron rich spheres” by RJ Lee and Jones,
among others.
they have mistakenly or fraudulently been reporting (I made the same mistake up until recently)
that the trusses were A-36 steel and that the columns were the same. The presence of the additional
elements like silicon and especially sulfer have thrown the Truth movement off for years. But the
fact is, the HSLA steel has these elements in it so of course they would show up in Jones’
investigation.
The “iron rich spheres” are the HSLA steel trusses that are missing from the Ground Zero photos,
not proof of “thermite” or “thermate” or “super thermite” or “nanothermite”… that has always
been either a planned distraction or a horrible mistake to be made for years by credible scientists…
I don’t think they could have made that mistake.
The simple tests to detect explosive residues in the dust would tell us what they used to bring them
down, and would, by law, force a new criminal investigation.
Reply
Jessiahtherational, on September 8, 2011 at 8:37 am said:

All the dust has been tested and analyzed for reasons related to the Zadroga bill…. and testing
for explosives by all these organizations before then wasn’t done because, you know, the
building was hit by a plane…
I don’t know who Steven Jones or his “researchers” are, but he probably refused to test because
he knew the whole “demolition charges” theory is total BS and was afraid he’d just prove that
fact.
By the way, did you even know that the WTC routinely had bomb sniffing dogs brought in
because of the previous terrorist attack in 1993? Did you know that it most likely take over
10,000 demolition charges to bring down just one of the towers for a controlled demolition, and
that would take several months and several trucks full of bombs going through multiple sets of
security and passed the 100,000 or so people that frequented the WTC everyday without any
one of them noticing? Did you not notice that in the several months leading to the attack (in
which these supposed demolition charges would be planted) that not one bomb sniffing dog
noticed them?
Do you realize how ridiculous this whole argument that 9/11 was some kind of inside job
sounds? Seriously? Have you thought about that aspect? The ridiculousness? Really… have
you?
Reply
willyloman, on September 8, 2011 at 5:05 pm said:

The JL Hudson building was demoed just a little while prior to 9/11. At the time it was the
world record for tallest building and most floor space of any demolition at the time.
It’s floor space was nearly exactly the same as the floor space in one Twin Tower. According
to a CDI report on the demolition, it took just under one ton of explosives and about two
weeks to rig with one of their standard crews.
Extrapolate the numbers (2 to 1) and you come up with realistic numbers for explosives
needed and time for the crews to rig the demolition.
I imagine that they would have needed a bit more det cord on the Twin Towers because they
weren’t trying to keep the dust to a minimum, in fact they wanted to pulverize the floor
systems as much as possible, so they probably used more det cord. Cutter charges would
have been easier and faster to set because the JL Hudson building was multifaceted with
several different levels and areas. The Towers were straight shots down the interior of the
core section of the building. Much faster to rig.
These are facts. These are based on real world understanding of the demolition process and
the history of the demolition business. If you wish to simply throw out unsubstantiated
assessments of materials needed and the time needed to rig such a project, and call that an
argument, you go right ahead. But we deal with the real world here.
Reply

Hmm, actually the JL Hudson building had about 2.2 million sq ft of office and retail
space. ONE tower had about 3.8 million sq ft of office space… I guess that 1.6 million
extra sq feet hardly makes a difference or the fact that they would have to set explosives
in two buildings. Also the JL Hudson building took 24 days (more than two weeks, but
hey, hardly makes a difference, right?) just to set the explosives, not counting the 3
months to investigate and then 4 months to prep the building.
Oh, and the fact that the JL Hudson building was completely deserted except for the
demolition team; while the towers had over 50,000 people there each day that some
magic demolition team would have to work around and hide their progress from every
day. (I’m sure that would have no factor whatsoever on their rigging timeframe…)
And you believe not one person of these 10s of thousands of people noticed anyone
carrying explosives in, or cleaning and maintenance crews doing normal maintenance
noticed anything changed? No one noticed trucks full of explosives and crews carrying
them in, night security guards and cleaning crews not noticing all the new people there?
Not one of them saying something about these going ons after the attack, since you
know, those people survived because they didn’t work at the hours the attacks took place
or managed to escape? Wow.
So how many people were involved in rigging this again? And they went completely
unnoticed before the attack and no one remembered them after it either? Not one of
them had second thoughts, or blew the whistle afterward? None of them blurted out
what they had done drunk at a bar, or confessed it in a church? None of their family
members noticed they got a job they didn’t talk about at the WTC a short while before
the attack and they suddenly came into a veritable fuck ton of mysteriously gained
money? Not one jealous family member or friend said anything? These guys that rigged
it just vanished from the face of the earth afterward? And somehow they had never met
anyone else in their entire life that would notice them disappear? None of this sounds far
fetched at all…
And you say you deal with the real world here? Are you sure on that statement? You say
lines like “I imagine that they would have needed a bit more det cord on the Twin Towers
because they weren’t trying to keep the dust to a minimum, in fact they wanted to
pulverize the floor systems as much as possible, so they probably used more det cord.”
and then you say this complete speculation is a fact. Are you sure you know what facts
are?
Reply

Actually, the Twin Towers, Towers 1 and 2 of the WTC, had a combined 4,300,000
square feet. Reference is here…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center
Which is roughly the same as my own assessment based on my scale drawings of the
buildings which you can easily find.
JL Hudson building was 2.2 million which works out almost perfectly to what I said in
the first place (2 to 1 ratio) and it does make a difference.
The install time of the demolition charges is a variable dependent on the number of
workers they used. So 24 days on one project could be 12 days on a project of similar size
simply based on the fact that they have twice as many workers setting the charges.
That doesn’t take a genius to figure out, does it.
As far as the prep time for the building, that doesn’t factor in at all because OBVIOUSLY
they didn’t knock out the walls and remove all the furniture IF THEY WERE TRYING
TO KEEP THE DEMOLITION A SECRET. So that prep time does not factor in AT ALL.
Am I insulting you? Am I calling you names? No. That is what you do. I don’t need to.
When you can reply to my questions about how concrete melted and steel melted from
fires that could only have gotten as hot as burning jet fuel (1500 degs or so) then we can
have a rational discussion about this. Until then, you are just tossing out strawmen
arguments and clutching at straws.
There was a vast amount of heat energy released in an extremely short period of time.
Nothing in the official story of 9/11 can explain that. The sources that I provided you
were from the History Channel and the 9/11 Museum in New York… hardly what you
would call whacked out conspiracy theory sites.
Reply

Uh, I replied to the concrete melting thing in one of my posts below already…
But the 4,300,000 reference in that very article has a citation near it asking for
clarification. That very same article states this: “Each floor of the towers had 40,000
square feet (3,700 m2) of space for occupancy.[22] Each tower had 3,800,000 square feet
(353,000 m2) of office space. Altogether the entire complex of seven buildings had
11,200,000 square feet (1,040,000 m2) of space.” The same article states: “The complex
was located in the heart of New York City’s downtown financial district and contained
13.4 million square feet (1.24 million m2) of office space.” All of that from the same
article, and not consistent with itself. In comparison however, the Empire State Building,
which is smaller than the individual towers were, is stated to have 2,768,591 sq ft of floor
area…
Moving on, if they were trying to keep the demolition a secret, would it not take longer
for them to do it when there are tons of people watching them? It doesn’t take a genius to
figure out that if you are keeping an operation a secret with thousands of potential
witnesses around you, the prep time to do your task would be significantly increased as
opposed to being able to do that same task in an empty building without having to hide
the fact that you are doing that task…
And if they are not knocking out walls to hide the demolitions, where are they putting
them again? I mean, for a controlled demolition that is NOT hiding the fact that they are
demolishing they have to remove walls and cut into places to place explosives… but with
a secret demolition they don’t have to… for what reason again? Not even to hide them?
Also, the human factor portions of my statements were completely ignored. How many
people were planting the bombs again? More than 24 apparently. How many people
were involved in the planning of just this portion of the plan? In a response by another
poster apparently SECURECOM security dog handlers were apparently involved as
they were of course purposefully ignoring the bomb warnings, meaning they were in on
it. How many dog handlers were there? How many people in the planning stages had to
brief and ensure the loyalty of just the dog handlers then?
Was SECURECOM the mastermind behind the whole conspiracy? If not, then how
many people were involved in the planning stages to delegate portions of the overall
conspiracy to SECURECOM? Every time you add in a group of people you end up
having to bring in more… any chance you can break down the conspirator hierarchy for
me?
What I’m saying is, not one person before or after the attack came forward about it?
None had second thoughts? No one noticed them? What was their personal motivation
that would make them so loyal to this cause? Was it money? None of their family
members noticed they suddenly got a shit ton of it?
This is a lot of individuals (you do know that groups of people are made up of
individuals, all with different motivations and personal beliefs and not just a hive mind,
right?) to be so motivated to killing fellow citizens of the same country they live in. You
can’t have a Governor hire a prostitute or a Senator trying to elicit gay sex in an airport
bathroom without it leaking out , and yet all these people involved, not a single bit of
information? Really? How is that even possible?
Reply
beelzebubjones, on May 21, 2013 at 8:04 pm said:

chief electrical design engineer for wtc for forty years, richard humenn, states that all
one would need is access to the elevator shafts. they were completely sealed off from
the rest of the building so no one would have noticed. commandeer one elevator and
do what you need to do. from the shaft all of the core columns were exposed.
remember the floors of the wtc cantilevered out from the core to the outside shell. this
means there would be no need to go thru ceilings or walls to lay the wire. there really
was no support beyond the core until you got to the shell. there are also many
accounts of tenants in the building talking about power downs in the building for
weeks prior to 9/11. it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that a power down would
also mean all security systems would be offline. and dismissing the dog patrol from
duty is what they did. it wasn’t a matter of the dogs ignoring things. there were no
dogs five days prior to 9/11.
you’re right to question motives. i mean any detective or prosecuting attorney will tell
you it is essential to solving crimes. means, motive and opportunity. if you think
about it; as rich as osama bin laudin was and even tho we know he wasn’t involved,
sadham hussein’s power as a dictator neither of them had the means to orchestrate
9/11 like the president and vice president did. it’s the difference between bill gates and
a lotto winner.
as for motive… bin laudin needed regular dialysis which he’d have done at an
american hospital in dubai. bin laudin wanted u.s. military bases out of saudi arabia
and iraq. i doesn’t really make sense for him carry out 9/11 and in fact he denied it
was him. considering the dastardly deeds he did and claimed he did, he wanted
nothing to do with 9/11. hussien got lynched. i’m sure he saw that coming. not a
great motivator.
larry silverstein invested about 15 million dollars of his own money and borrowed
another 35 million to secure the world trade center lease and negotiate insurance
policies after vornado backed out of the deal. in less than a year that initial
investment paid out in the sum of seven billion dollars. that’s about a 500% return on
investment. bush, from a major oil family, gained control of probably the biggest
untapped puddles of oil in the world as well as control over the country that a
pipeline could be laid to feed oil to the economies of russia, india and china without
having to put it in barrels or on a ship. vice president cheney, former ceo of
halliburton saw that company receive a 2.5 billion contract called free iraqi oil. so
osama and sadham’s motives could only be the glory because they both knew they’d
be pursued to the end. silverstein, pres and veep were looking to gain billions.
according to ex-cia operative susan lindauer, she was informed by fellow agents that
for weeks prior to 9/11 unmarked vans would arrive at wtc in the early morning
hours after the janitorial staff left. supposedly unknown cargo was unloaded from
these vans. the opportunity makes a lot more sense and is a lot easier from within
than from without.
are you really serious about anyone who may have been involved unwittingly would
feel no fear in being a whistle blower? really? first off the guilt would most likely
make them deny that it was possible and secondly the people they’d be going up
against would be the most powerful people in the world. i don’t think it would be too
hard to keep most people unaware of the intended outcome of their actions. that need
to know policy works wonders in the covert world. neither would it be hard keeping
everyone knowingly involved, whether it was dozens or hundreds, quiet. not hard at
all.
Reply
jan, on September 8, 2011 at 6:16 pm said:

Those security dogs were used by the security company, SECURECOM, the same company
who replaced or upgraded the cable in the Twin Towers about a month before 9/11. Cables
that look like det-cord and if they ran it in the ceilings in the spaces created for cables….
then a dog wouldn’t smell det-cord anyway, especially if the dog handlers ignored any
warnings the dogs might of given.
Reply

Wow, that is a shit ton of corrupt people. How many people were involved in this
conspiracy again? Seems like every time someone makes an argument against
something that number just gets bigger to throw more people in to counter act the
argument…
Reply

Here’s one for you…
explain how 24″ x 6″ thick structural steel beams melted and bent without fracturing,
without cracking, without breaking. It melts at 2750 deg F… jet fuel burns at only 1500 deg
F and office fires burn at 600+ deg F. In fact, in the paint tests run by NIST, they found
evidence of fires affecting steel only at temperatures of 625+ deg F and no more. Surely not
enough to melt steel. Yet the steel was still melted (read the RJ Lee report)
explain the molten concrete which melted around guns and steel. It melts at a temperature of
around 3200 deg F. How is that possible if the hottest it could have gotten, according to the
official story, is the temperature of jet fuel (1500 deg)?
These are facts. I don’t deal in conjecture and speculation like you do. These are facts. How
did that massive beam reach a temperature hot enough to cause that perfect bend in Less
Than 12 seconds (time of the collapse)?
PETN, the standard high explosive in det cord, burns at a temperature of greater than 8,000
deg F. That could be one answer. But “jet fuel” clearly isn’t.
The Horseshoe & The Meteorite 9/11

Reply

So… a material can’t bend from any other factors other than reaching its melting point?
Is that how physics and chemistry work now? So the 100s of tons of building pressing
down on heated metal (you do know that metal can weaken at high temperatures
without reaching its complete melting point… right?) doesn’t have any impact or stress
on already damaged beams? Or that if some of the support structure is gone and a beam
is now slightly bent and heated up that beam won’t be able to hold nearly as much
weight as what it was able to before…
I mean, the critical temperature of structural steel (where it is at only 60% or less than its
normal yield strength) made in America is approximately 1000-1300 deg F; the
temperature required for it to weaken to this point only gets lower the longer the material
is being heated too. Even 600 deg F continuously burning could cause it to weaken
significantly. Hey, isn’t 1300 deg F less than 1500 deg F?
Or how about the fact that you don’t know how melting works to begin with. Rocks, and
composites (such as concrete) are made up of several substances, all of which have
different melting points. All it would take is for a portion of the overall structure to reach
a phase transition and cause a partial melt, which would cause the overall structure of the
concrete to begin flowing. Most concrete will reach this point between 900 and 1100 deg
F… that’s still below 1500 deg F, right?
None of this is even taking into account the fact that if the heat is sealed and creating a
“mircoclimate”, causing pressure to continue to rise, this will in turn cause the
temperature to continue to rise and exceed normal expectations.
It’s almost like most of your argument is based on the fact that huge aspects of science
and physics are largely ignored and your basing your conspiracy BS on how you
THINK things should work in the real world, and not on how they actually do work.
Once again, you throw out tons of speculation and call them facts, but at the same time
you’re asking how so and so could be possible while not understanding or even being
aware of all the many, many factors involved, and yet through your lack of
understanding you somehow do a huge leap over to it only being explainable through
explosives and wild bullshit theories. It’s really quite amazing.
Reply
beelzebubjones, on May 21, 2013 at 8:20 pm said:

the material called steel really doesn’t bend from any other possible natural factors
other than being heated to very high temperatures. that is how physics and
chemistry work now and how they have always worked. this is why things like
skyscrapers and bridges are built from steel. the impact or stress needed to bend cold
hard steel would be truly astronomical, meaning something like a meteor or a
possible terrestrial culprit might be a tsunami, which is basically the force of the
entire ocean. certainly the top ten percent of the towers above the impact could never
deform the ninety percent of undamaged steel columns below. that would be like
putting a twenty pound bag of flour on your head and it crushing you down into a
puddle of goo in under ten seconds. maybe in cartoons but not in real life.
Reply
Ron, on September 11, 2013 at 7:28 pm said:

What brought the towers down then? Since they were designed to withstand the
impact of a 707…
Reply
jan, on September 10, 2011 at 8:35 am said:

Jessie, why don’t you do your self a favor and read Willy’s articles about 9/11 … look at the
side bar on your left….. see 001 9/11 writings and 002 scott’s 9/11 writings ? Click on them
and pull up enough information to keep your little mind busy reading for a few days….
quit babbling about silly nonsense that relates only to your trying to take up space and time
with your air-bubble comments.
Reply
Jessiahtherational, on September 10, 2011 at 5:34 pm said:

So in other words: Someone has a differing view than yours with information to back it
up, so instead of having any kind of counter-argument or explanation, you just want me
to go away so you can stick your head back in the sand? Nice.
I mean, did you even read anything that I wrote? Did you even notice that it was a direct
response to a question presented to me, and that I answered it? How is that babbling
nonsense?
Here’s why: because it doesn’t fit with your theory, and your theory is more important to
you than facts or reality. You’ve gobbled up some conspiracy nonsense and now are so
invested in it that anything anyone says to the contrary, even if it gives a valid alternate
explanation, is just silly nonsense that takes up space to you.
Do you think “Willy” and “Scott’s” articles are somehow some kind of absolute,
infallible truth or something? Have you never questioned the validity of its content?
Honestly, I doubt you have the reading comprehension skills for it to matter anyway.
Reply
steven andresen, on August 25, 2009 at 6:27 pm said:
will,
I assumed that whoever was investigating the residues of the Towers with the idea that they might have
been brought down by explosives would have, as a matter of course, looked for all the common
explosive residues in addition to more exotic ones.
You are telling me that Prof. Jones and members of whatever team he has on this not only didn’t look
for likely culprits, but refuses to do so.
In addition to this, you are telling me that the official 9-11 commission did not, and I assume refuses to,
check for common explosive residues also.
If this is true then they are bunglers, and more than that.
I have thought one of the crimes of the Bush administration was to treat the 9-11 murders as an act of
war instead of as a crime, and refused to treat the murders as a crime to be investigated as a crime
according to the procedures followed by detectives, and so on. It was a crime for this very reason, that
evidence can be made to disappear and be ignored.
It was the subsequent cleaning up of the crime scene that argues to me hit cover-up.
I appreciate your work on this issue.
Reply
Johnathan Douglas, on August 27, 2009 at 9:19 pm said:

I’m with you willy … I’ve always found it incredibly odd that out of all the people in the world an ultra
conservative republican mormon from Cheney’s favorite university was the one who ended up being
the spoksperson for this line of research ….
I also found all the foot dragging he does odd to … The very first thing a detective does at a shooting is
test everyone present for gun shot residue … Here we have a suspected explosion and … no tests for
explosive residue!?? … A few common chemicals and a swab and we would all have our answer in a
second would’t we? … Now eight years later and he asks Nist to do it?? … Knowing full well they
won’t … That is fishy … Good call my friend ….
Reply
KL, on September 19, 2009 at 11:22 am said:

One thing that seems to have eluded the proponents of the super secretive nano thermite theory is the
simple fact that, If you want a something to definitely happen, you use tried and tested techniques to
ensure that it DOES happen.
So we are being led to believe that the government wanted the Twin towers and building 7 to
completely be demolished and then used a brand new untested technique!
Come on nano thermite proponates, you spout a lot of science but not much common sense.
The US governmemt thought lets use the Twin Towers as a guinea bigs to test out how well Nano
Thermite actually performs on buildings……yeah right!!!
Reply
Good point, KL. I said something very similar to Prof. Jones about a year and a half ago on my 9/11
Blogger post, “An open letter to Steven Jones on the Subject of Det Cord”… you can Google it with
911Blogger and it should come up. No controlled demolition expert would attempt something like
this with experimental or even just secret military grade explosives. It would not happen.
Reply
Johnny White, on July 12, 2014 at 4:41 pm said:

Do some real reading and research instead of just babbling and moving your jaw bone. Nano-
thermite technology is far from being a “new and untested technology” at the time of the 9-11
explosions of Towers I and II and WTC Building 7. It is a “US Military Weapons Grade Product,
exclusively manufactured by as few as two or three facilities under US-Patent No. 5.505.799 /
Nano-engineered Explosive; and US-Patent No. 4.464.989 / Integral Low-Energy Thermite Igniter.
No cables, drilling or tons of explosives necessary. Both patents give answers to a lot of questions,
regarding the use of Nano-Thermite on 9/11.
Reply
willyloman, on July 12, 2014 at 5:12 pm said:

Sorry but that is retarded. The patent that everyone shows a link to is that of a “thermite
match” which ignites HIGH EXPLOSIVES. So yes, you still would have needed det cord you
still would have needed high explosives. Even Jones himself says that the thermite was
“probably” used only to ignite the high explosives since it’s a low explosive and can’t create a
demolition wave the likes of which is needed for demolition.
Reply
ericswan, on November 7, 2009 at 7:23 pm said:

Man o man I can’t fathom why anyone puts snap on their site.
Reply
a, on November 9, 2009 at 10:15 am said:

you idiot, you can’t use a JREF forum as a source!
Reply
willyloman, on November 9, 2009 at 11:05 am said:

typically I wouldn’t use JREF as a source, but in this case, they are correct and it is hard to get someone
from 911Blogger to point out this discrepency. But apparently Jones and Harrit both address this issue
(the red/grey chips being some kind of paint), so THEY considered the JREF input worthy of at least
SOME consideration, so, so do I.
Reply
mickelodian, on January 6, 2010 at 4:24 pm said:

Nanothermite can’t be that hard to detect… I’m sure it has a pretty long shelf life given its purpose…
It should still therefore be present in NYC… and since it is a military explosive… and there have been
no wars in recent decades that included attacks on New York… well if any nanothermite is found in
NYC… then that’s proof enough it was used there!… if the samples get stronger along the debris cloud
route… you can then only assume that the buildings were demolished deliberately!
So… has anyone done this? found out WHERE, in what quantities any traces of nanothermite was
found?
Otherwise it is basically hypothesis based on scant evidence…
The funny thing is…as I said… you could prove or disprove this hypothesisi for about 300 bucks with
samples from NYC!
Reply
Josh, on March 1, 2010 at 6:15 pm said:

What a load of shit. Steel buildings don’t turn into powder and fall at free fall speed because of fire. And
you’ll still be a lying coward when you wake up tomorrow.
Reply
amWiser Kafira, on March 1, 2010 at 11:01 pm said:

Did anyone ever consider that “the government” might also be constituted of treacherous and
treasonous Muslim infiltrators who had access to the nano-thermite? After all the military obviously has
placed way too much trust in the Muslims in the military. Under Bush when Ft. Hood killer Major
Hasan ==who gave his powerpoint presentation that included explaining to the others in his class why a
Muslim in his position couldn’t fight alongside them = he was promoted instead of being let go!!!!
Reply
Peter, on May 12, 2010 at 3:06 am said:

I hate these debunking websites and blogs.
The people who write this crap to try and defend precious America and to show their patriocity are as
thick as two short planks.
You guys have an answer for everything relating to the evidence around topics such as thermite,
squibs, the pancake collapse, the 4 airlines etc etc. How long did you sit around thinking up what to
write to deflect the truth. Anyone with minor physics knowledge knows buildings don’t explode to the
ground in ash because of a minor puncture hole in the side and 50 minutes of black smoke (and
virtually no continuous concentrated burning fires of less than 800 degrees).
Tests on what you call undercoat paint has already been carried out – they tried to disolve it in paint
stripper and it had no affect. Its not paint!
And even if it was thermite paint how does one charge it to ignition point? If the whole building was
painted in the stuff the whole building would have caught fire instantly. No, these were accurately
placed strap-on charges to beams and columns all the way down the building, and bombs in the
basement so the rubble has somewhere to end up. Hell, white smoke was rising up from ground level
before the towers began to collapse. A large explosion was heard and taped 2 seconds before the
demolition wave started to fall (note my word demolition, thats what it was folks).
Aircraft fuel is not capable of turning steel into liquid flowing molten lava as found at ground zero for
weeks after. The fireman were pouring water down there constantly to the point the firefighters said it
was like a lake down their. Thermite reaction can keep steel molten even underwater because it creates
p
its own oxygen source. Its burns just as well underwater.
Then you guys try and give your rediculous theory on what the squibs were trying to brainwash the
average ignorant American (no offense to the smart ones). The WTC office spaces were huge, they had
no dividing walls. So what happens when pulvorised building materials forces its way down elevator
shafts and bursts through doors and comes into large open plan office spaces? It should fill the space
uniformally, and if the pressure is great enough burst many windows at a time, but the squibs we all
can see some 20 or more floors below the demolition wave were localized, pin-point accurate, violent
ejections of pulvorised building matierals being forced out horizontally at over 50mph. Steel beams
flying across the sky horizontally and wedging themselves deep into neighbouring buildings. Steel
does not react in this manner without some incredible force driving it.
What we saw on 9/11 was the buildings exploding outwards into pyroclastic clouds very similar to a
volcano going off. Incredible heat is needed to drive such huge plumes of dust clouds all across NY and
over the river, much more heat that the pathetic fires in the WTC towers.
Think about this: If steel frame skycrapers could fall again due to fire what insurance company would
want to insure them?
(Sorry about the typo’s, I was typing fast)
Reply

Could you also apologize for being an idiot? Thanks. Anybody that believes in this 9/11 conspiracy
BS is an idiot. Anybody that believes having a passenger plane slam into a building as only being a
“minor puncture hole” is an idiot. People that believe explosives were set in a building that had
thousands of employees going in and out of there every day at all hours of the day including night
shifts without anyone noticing when it takes several months of demolition workers working 8+ hour
shifts every day to set explosives in an abandoned building are idiots.
“Steel does not react in this manner without some incredible force driving it.” -Yeah, I guess having
hundreds of tons of building pressing down on top of it just isn’t much force.
You have several of these kinds of statements of “this doesn’t work this way” or “that doesn’t work
that way.” You ever think maybe you’re wrong? Maybe you have no idea what your talking
about? That you have some idea in your head of how things should work, but that reality just
doesn’t work that way and doesn’t bend to your preconceived notions? Maybe reality is just seems
too unrealistic for you.
This whole conspiracy BS really falls down to people believing they are smarter than they are,
possibly even being fairly intelligent, and then buying into some that’s stupid for stupid reasons but
believing they are too smart to fall for some line of BS. Then after getting emotionally invested in
that belief, try to start defending a stupid position with smart arguments.
Reply
Chris, on September 8, 2011 at 10:43 am said:

“This whole conspiracy BS really falls down to people believing they are smarter than they are,
possibly even being fairly intelligent, and then buying into some that’s stupid for stupid reasons
but believing they are too smart to fall for some line of BS. Then after getting emotionally
invested in that belief, try to start defending a stupid position with smart arguments.”
This is a classic case of projection. Just replace “conspiracy BS” with “official story BS” and it
works. People are emotionally invested in the “official story” . Most 9/11 activists initially
believed the official story but facts and rationality overtook emotion at some point. Its the
“debunkers” who spend hours daily trolling for online fights with 9/11 activists who seem the
most emotionally invested.
Reply

What facts and rationality? Please explain, because in all the arguments I’ve seen so far,
there has been none of that from any of the conspiracy crazies. The arguments they present
are so far fetched and ludicrous while ignoring so many facts its mind boggling.
It really boils down to people wanting so bad to be in a world where they can be the unsung
heroes of it while not actually having to do any kind of work to be one. The motive is to
make themselves important; all the people that believe the official story (you know, reality)
are mindless sheep, or bloodthirsty monsters in on some grand conspiracy; while they are
the ones who see the light, and elevate themselves to a level the real world will never elevate
them to.
I mean, if everyone else is an ignorant sheep or a bloodthirsty conspirator, all they have to do
to feel superior is roll out of bed. Kudos on that life plan, friend!
Reply
Chris, on September 9, 2011 at 12:40 pm said:

More projections from Mr. Superiority Complex himself-“Jessiahtherational”. Even your
name screams ego.
Look at all your comments here. Emotionally invested much? Why do you feel the need
to “take on” 9/11 activists so hard? Does the corporate media really need your help? No,
but you obviously get something out of this. Emotionally invested. I guess you’re the
“hero” taking out those dastardly anti-American,Jihadist-helping 9/11 activists right little
guy? Just doing your civic duty?
Reply

Ha ha, I like the argument that if anyone criticizes you, or some one else that you agree
with it’s just automatically regulated to projection with you. That must be an awesome
world to live in where if anyone brings up any issue they might have with you or
someone else whose opinion you agree with, that there’s no way the point or criticism
they make might actually have validity, they’re just projecting their own issues on to
you! Everybody else is terrible but you and your friends, you’re perfect! No ego at all…
Anyway, the thing I get out of this is a debate. Simple as that. I don’t live in a world
where every argument that is made someone has to elevate their position to believing it is
the work of a hero for it to be a worthwhile thing to pursue. I want to understand how
people came to these conclusions they came to. I want to understand how they side step
all the holes in their theories while simultaneously ignoring the fact that they are doing
so. I want to understand how people can believe in something so hard while purposefully
overlooking the giant holes in the sheer practicality of what they want to believe
happened, the giant leaps of logic they have to make to reach these conclusions and so
adamantly defend them. But when all is said and done, it’s just a debate to me.
I don’t think anyone here is “anti-American Jihadist helping”, or is even dastardly at all.
Mostly just lacking logic and rationality. I mean, you keep bringing up the corporate
media and them “pushing the official story.” Is the entire media in on the plot too? How
many people are in on it? Do you realize how irrational that is? It’s basically creating a
world where it’s not some group that is in on this plot, but where pretty much
EVERYONE is, except for the 9/11 activists. That’s what I want explained, to understand
how it can be believed, and that’s really only going to happen if the people that believe it
tell me.
Reply
A, on October 27, 2015 at 6:53 am said:

Even before all the scientific arguments and the this can’t happen and that can’t happen . I am
amazed at the stupidity of people surely by seeing the events that happened that day this was a
controlled demolition . I worry for the human race when people believe any BS that 2 structures
of that size landed in there own foot print after being struck at either side . I have seen many
controlled demolitions and they more or less come down the same . The answer to your who
would put charges in a building full of people well let’s be honest they didn’t give a f@*k when
they eventually brought them
Down on thousands . Closing off floors for “maintainance” work for weeks would have given
them time to carry out the work to plant devices at main structural point . Know what there is
no point in explaining anything to any one that believes the official lies . Fkn American
corporate mongrels
Reply
willyloman, on May 12, 2010 at 4:59 am said:

In case you didn’t notice, this is a Truth advocacy site, not a “debunking” site.
nanothermite is a red herring Peter…
Reply

So… if it turned out you were wrong (you are) about the buildings collapsing from anything more
than the structural damage caused by the planes flying into them, would you take down your site
since that would make it completely obsolete?
Reply

In case you can’t read, this site is about many things. Globalization, neoliberalism, the
Washington Consensus, and others. 9/11 is one thing that we address here.
When it turns out that sites like this one are correct about 9/11 (we are) do you think that every
other news site should shut down their websites because they are then “completely obsolete”?
Reply

I will admit and apologize that I didn’t really look into many of the other aspects of your
site, so I guess if you ever join reality and realize that you are not right about 9/11 (you’re
really, really not, not at all), then only your 9/11 conspiracy discussion portions would be
obsolete, not that they aren’t already since they are pretty much just false information, but
you get the idea.
Reply
jan, on September 9, 2011 at 3:30 pm said:

I am just a viewer here, but I find your comments rather silly, Jessiah the rational.
Reply

I find this whole conspiracy theory to be rather silly.
Reply
TheHolyCrow, on October 24, 2010 at 9:01 am said:

Harritt, Jones, Gage, and everyone else in the Truth Movement know and admit that they do not have
all the answers. Nano-thermite is not a red herring, it is merely one piece of the puzzle that has been
uncovered through scientific investigation. Gates, Harritt, Jones etc.readily admit that other explosives
most likely have been used in conjunction with the thermite. The perpetrators obviously were taking no
chances that the buildings would not come down completely this time. Who knows what other exotic
elements were used, including micro nukes, experimental directed energy devices, or some of those
“Unknown unknowns” Rumsfeld was famous for speaking about. If you are truly searching for truth,
don’t knock the folks who have found some of it. Remember, the only people who know the whole
story on this are those few who were at the very pinnacle of this top down pyramidically shaped
conspiracy. It is very possible that we will not know all of the facts for generations to come. In the
meantime, to disparage the work of researchers who have found incontrovertible proof of the existence
of the nano-thermite in the WTC dust, is highly suspicious, to say the least. When you have all the
answers, then speak up again. In the meantime, quit making an ass out of yourself, for posterity’s sake.
I truly can’t believe that your blog here is near the top of the list when “Nano-Thermite” is GOOGLED.
It should be at the bottom, because the relevance of it is miniscule.
Reply
Mosque Being Built 2 Blocks Away From Ground Zero... What Do You Think? - Page 8 -
Android Forums, on October 28, 2010 at 5:17 pm said:
[…] […]
Reply
Mat, on January 7, 2011 at 9:53 am said:

It would be great if Scott and willowman could disprove the following also:
1,411 verified Architectural and Engineering Professionals at Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
and Fire Fighters who worked at the Trade Towers that day of Firefighters for 911 Truth.
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
and also of course over 300 Verified Pilots and Aviation Professionals at Pilots for 911 Truth.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/index.html
If you prefer video than reading, than this provides a clear and concise breakdown of actual evidence
surrounding the events of September 11.
Finally, David Ray Griffin, as he uses only evidence to disproves the startling little evidence supplied by
the “Official Story”. And also use documented and scientific fact to prove the correct events of that day.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060405112622982
The evidence supplied by all these Professionals is overwhelming. I find it hard to grasp that some
people will still try to argue in favour of an Administration that killed over 3,000 of its own people. Do
you not feel that if you were killed on that day all you would want is for people to actually do some
solid research. The answers are easy to find.
Reply
willyloman, on January 7, 2011 at 11:28 am said:

you seem to misunderstand my point. I am a Truth Advocate and much of this site is dedicated to some
of the very issues you bring up. To that end, I am calling into question the very questionable
“nanothermite” distraction created by Jones and BYU which has done nothing to help our cause.
Reply
frozintime, on February 10, 2011 at 2:45 pm said:

And I suppose Building 7 never hit by a plane came down is 7 seconds (penthouse first) was due to
small fires…Why Don’t You Just “Pull It”
Reply
willyloman, on February 10, 2011 at 3:28 pm said:

it was actually brought down in an explosive controlled demolition actually. done with conventional
high explosives like those used in the controlled demolition industry. the same explosives that NIST,
FEMA, and USGS did not test for.
Reply

Those explosives weren’t tested for because the towers were quite obviously hit by a plane and then
collapsed from the the damage caused by it. There was quite obviously no explosive controlled
demolition involved, and the remains of the debris has been tested and analyzed (for rational
reasons, to find carcinogens to help the first responders get cancer treatment for the Zadroga bill).
Since all of the information on what the debris contained is there, if there was any explosive residue
there, you’d be able to just see if it was from that analysis. (There is not any.)
Reply

The testing process is basically a version of a Greiss Reagent test. The high explosive residues
don’t just show up on any old test like those for carinogens.
And no, neither NIST, or FEMA, or the 9/11 Commission has ever tested for traces of high
explosive residue on any 9/11 related evidence or dust from Ground Zero.
Reply
macvimto, on February 14, 2011 at 7:22 pm said:

“The FBI COINTELPRO program was initiated in 1956. Its purpose, as
described later by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, was “to expose, disrupt,
misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize activities” of those
individuals and organizations whose ideas or goals he opposed.
If you understand the meaning of the tactic “to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise
neutralize activities” you will understand that the person who is most likely of being a Fed, is the one
who involves human rights activists in activities that have no effect on those who are building tyranny,
and activities that will destroy the credibility of the human rights activists.
Misdirecting activities involves the goal of actually taking over the leadership. Taking over the
leadership is the highest priority. Beware of new comers who volunteer to lead.
Misdirecting activities is a fairly simple thing in organizations that put their agenda up for a vote.
Infiltrators simply present alternative agendas until they have the organization bogged down with
foolishness.
The shill;s are all over the web 🙂 you have been warned
Reply
blues, on September 10, 2011 at 6:30 am said:

macvimto,
This is precisely correct. That is exactly how they do it.
Plus they have nasty “secret societies” to suppress whatever they consider “bad for their business.”
Keep your affinity groups small; at 12 or less.
Reply
Thermite myth debunked repeatedly...thruther ignore science and facts, on April 28, 2011 at
11:58 am said:
[…] […]
Reply
Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad - Page 85 - US Message Board - Political
Discussion Forum, on June 23, 2011 at 1:38 pm said:
[…] […]
Reply

As I have said before, I don’t believe that the WTC Buildings #1 and #2 were destroyed merely to
provide a pretext for launching wars, but also to perpetrate a psy-op to befuddle the public by creating
a very traumatic, yet physically implausible scenario so as to induce a permanent state learned
helplessness. This would help explain why people no longer protest the outrageous transgressions of
their government and the massive destruction of their way of life. Building #7 underwent a typical
controlled demolition — however, #1 and #2 were destroyed by controlled detonations. Everyone could
plainly see that they did not “collapse” at all, but rather exploded violently from the top down, as if
they were Fourth of July sparkler sticks. The top of Building #2, the first to explode, began to lean over
and fall, and this would have halted its collapse — but it didn’t collapse — it simply exploded in mid-
air. Which is absurd.
Merely destroying the steel support members of the buildings, as some claim could be accomplished
with “thermite,” would not cause such top down detonations. So while the steel supports were certainly
destroyed in some manner, this in itself cannot explain how the buildings exploded top-down. We were
all made witness to an impossible event. People who claim that crashing aircraft can make buildings
explode top-down are either fanatical or disingenuous.
The instant removal of nearly all evidence, the refusal to seriously investigate, the many strange
anomalous red herring events, etc., all point to outrageous criminality far more sinister than the initial
plane crashes. Remember too, for example, that the planes were equipped with advanced radio-control
devices that authorities with proper codes could have utilized to completely remove control of the
aircraft from the hands of the pilots, and so on.
It is presumably naive to imagine that any serious investigation will ever be undertaken. It would be far
more productive to simply reassure the public that what they witnessed was indeed impossible unless
ultra-sophisticated agents and special operations teams were involved. No, Virginia, it was not 19 minor
league hijackers with box cutters who did it. Such reassurance would go far toward restoring the
people’s confidence in their own competence and social potential.
Reply

Jessiahtherational,
You are a nutcase. Go back to raising sheep. Stop this insane disinfo, please.
We all saw what really happened. So just go back to raising your sheep, or whatever.
Reply

I don’t think you saw what you think you saw.
I like how a rational viewpoint that has valid questions and explanations that are contrary to you
conspiracy theory is just “insane disinfo” to you. Is that how every viewpoint that you don’t agree
with is?
Are you sure you’re not the sheep? I mean, you are following this conspiracy BS as if it’s some kind
of infallible gospel, never questioning its content.
Why do you not want someone questioning the validity of this conspiracy anyways? Are you afraid
you’re wrong? Why wouldn’t you want a discussion? If you’re theory was right, wouldn’t
answering the questions that are asked only strengthen your argument and move your agenda
forward that much more?
Do you not want more answers? Why don’t you want to debate this topic? You’re here, this topic
interests you, why do you not want to discuss it? I mean, that’s the whole point of having a
discussion thread, to discuss it. If all anyone did was come here and “yes man” each other, this
discussion section would just be a big circle jerk and nothing more.
I wonder what’s going to be like 20 years from now when you look back at this time in your life
and think to yourself “Wow, how did I believe in this crap? I must have been nuts.”
Reply
blues, on September 10, 2011 at 6:41 pm said:

Sorry for calling you nutcase. Bad form. I was not referring to a conspiracy. I saw the buildings
simply blow up with my own eyes. Many times. You say I didn’t see what I did see. So what’s to
argue about?
Reply

Well, since it didn’t blow up, but collapsed after a plane hit it and then it burned with a shit
ton of structural damage before it did, and there’s videos of the debris, and no signs of any
kinds of explosives during the several months of going through that debris by the thousands
of volunteers going through it… I guess there really isn’t anything to argue about.
Reply
blues, on September 10, 2011 at 8:45 pm said:

There are “no signs of any kinds of explosives” simply because those with the evidence
refuse to acknowledge looking for them!
Willylowman said above in this very thread:

/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
If you are going to conduct an investigation, official or otherwise, of a suspected
controlled demolition, the very FIRST thing you should test for is the presence of the high
explosive residues that are commonly used in the industry.
Not only did FEMA, NIST, RJ LEE, and the 9/11 Commission fail to do that simple test…
so did our glorious leader, Steven Jones. Not only did he not test for it (after suggesting
someone else should) but he and his fellow “researchers” REFUSED to do so.
Why the hell is that?

\____________________
All physical evidence around the WTC was swiftly cleared away. The few facilities that
still have dust samples only report having tested for thermite-type incendiaries, and
refuse to acknowledge having tested for nitrate or perchlorate based explosive materials.
Many skeptics are seeking reports of such testing, but as of yet, none have been released.
If anyone has links to such reports, they surely should post them. Traces of thermite-type
chemicals have been detected, but such incendiaries could not have caused the buildings
to explode top-down as they did.
For example, there are no reports of tests for the explosive PETN, which can only be
detonated by powerful blasting squibs, not by ordinary heat or shock. PETN could easily
have been extruded into vertical electrical, communications, and ventilation shafts, etc.
There would be few or no blast points, since the entire buildings themselves would have
been the “blast points.”
Reply

What I really mean is, what about exploded bomb fragments? Pieces of bomb parts or
anything of like that in the debris. Why is there nothing of that nature found? Certainly
one of the thousands of responders would have come upon something like that if it were
there.
On a different note, suppose it was a better world and the terrorist attack did not happen
or was prevented. Would these supposed bombs that were placed before hand just be
sitting there to this day waiting to be discovered? Seems like it would be a pretty massive
risk to depend on a successful terror attack for. Are there bombs sitting in some building
that Flight 93 was intended for?
What is the benefit for the conspirators again? The Patriot Act? War in Afghanistan and
Iraq? Wouldn’t the terror attack pretty much provide an excuse for those anyway, even
if the towers didn’t fall?
Eh, maybe I shouldn’t get side tracked, I’m mostly curious about the bomb fragment
thing.
Reply

I proposed that explosive material was extruded into vertical electrical, communications,
and ventilation shafts, etc. There would be no “bomb fragments” because the buildings
themselves were the bombs. And we know that all evidence was immediately removed,
largely by volunteers who were duped into believing that the environment there was
safe, although we all now know it was not. The buildings were going to be exploded
whether they were hit by planes or not. However, the planes were going to fly into the
buildings no matter what happened because their emergency remote flight control
systems removed control of their systems from the pilots.
The primary goal of this operation was to perpetrate a psy-op to befuddle the public by
creating a very traumatic, yet physically implausible scenario so as to induce a
permanent state learned helplessness. This would help explain why people no longer
protest the outrageous transgressions of their government and the massive destruction of
their way of life. Merely flying planes into buildings would not have provided the
necessary shock and awe: The buildings had to explode.
The fate of Flight 93 is a murky issue — willylowman proposes that it was intended to hit
building #7, but was shot down. Apparently you have not bothered to read this entire
thread. And you seem to overlook many of the various possibilities. Think deeper.
Reply
willyloman, on September 11, 2011 at 6:41 am said:

Jessiah
The fragments issue is very simple. For 9 months following Sept. 11th, there was an operation taking
place at Fresh Kills landfill where the debris was hauled off too.
Four tents were set up with a conveyer belt running through each one. They took the loose debris, the
dust and other material, and they ran it on the belt while 5 or 6 agents literally sifted through it all
picking out small pieces of stuff for 12 hours a day. That went on for 9 months. My guess is they were
looking for the exact same kind of things you might be talking about. What they found… who
knows….
Also, during the clean up on site, there were agents on rooftops of surrounding buildings watching the
workers. When they found stuff and picked up stuff, the agents would radio other agents on the
ground and they would go over and see what they found and take it.
And for the record, Flight 93 was on a heading going straight for lower Manhattan when it was shot
down. Building 7 was the intended target and they decided to demo Building 7 anyway at 5:20 pm on
Sept 11th.
Reply

Even if what the workers found was taken away from them, they’d still be able to have looked at
what they picked up, and say they found this or that afterward. These workers were mostly
firefighters or military volunteers, people who do have training with explosives and would be able to
recognize pieces of them if they came across them. There were thousands of volunteers, yet none of
them found anything of that nature?
Reply

We don’t know what they found or didn’t find. Remember, there were hundreds of tons of dust
and pulverized debris. The heat wave from the explosions literally vaporized steel trusses (about
40,000 of them that you can’t find in a single photo of Ground Zero, trust me, I looked at
hundreds of them) whatever evidence may have been there were this a normal demo would
have been vaporized as well, at least much of it would have.
There is no way of knowing what they found sifting through the tons of dust and debris like
they did for 9 months. What we do know is that there is a great deal of existing evidence that
shows that this was a “combustion event” as it was put in the RJ Lee report (a scientific analysis
of the dust, not some “truther” study). The evidence that is there says something other than the
official story had to take place.
What I have done is looked seriously at the hard evidence that is there and looked at the
undeniable circumstantial evidence, and come to a conclusion based on those. That conclusion is
that what happened at the WTC was a controlled demolition. Watch the Building 7 videos and
tell me that doesn’t look like a controlled demolition.
Evidence is there to support that conclusion.
Reply
Roy Applegate, on September 13, 2011 at 9:55 am said:

Man,
if I was a criminal, I’d hate to have you on my trail.
I’d hate it, that is, unless I owned the courts. Oh, yeah, and the cops, and the soldiers, and the
government, and the mainstream media, and the school curriculum, and the–well, shit,
might as well say it and save space: Unless I owned the whole fucking System–past to
present.
But, because I do own all that, I can make it you who’s looked at, and stepped away from.
r ap
Reply

Blues
High explosives have a definate shelf life. They were not built into the building during construction… it
doesn’t work that way. They had plenty of time to rig it and CDI helped control the clean-up for about
9 months after the event. More than likely they were the ones who made sure certain things were never
found.
Reply

Both of you
The point is that we can’t really know how the Towers were rigged. They had the opportunity and they
kept the records for who went in and out of the building. During the cleanup they were in control of it
and kept the records of what was found. So these aspects of the unofficial investigation are at a
designed stand still
What we do know is that many aspects of the official story defy the laws of physics and that there were
literally tons of hard evidence found and reported on that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that
temperatures existed during the destruction of the towers that are impossible without high explosives.
Period. That, my friends, is solid, hard scientific evidence that the official story is incorrect. Combine
that with the scores of circumstantial evidence, and you have the beginings of a very solid criminal
case, were the official investigation to ever take place. That’s what I try to focus on.
Reply
T Mark Hightower, on November 27, 2011 at 8:45 pm said:

Please let me know what you think of my take on nanothermite from my article in Veterans Today of
August 27, 2011, “Nanothermite: If It Doesn’t Fit, You Must Acquit!”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/27/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit/
http://tmarkhightower.wordpress.com/
Thank you.
Mark
T Mark Hightower
San Jose, CA
Reply
willyloman, on November 27, 2011 at 9:21 pm said:

Fascinating, Mr. Hightower. As you may or may not know, I have been making the same
argument about the inability of “nanothermite” to be used as a high explosive in a controlled
demolition application and the subsequent mounds of disinformation that followed my original
questioning of the “nanothermite” evidence years ago. Yes, it is absolutely probable that the
planned demolition of the Truth movement will center around the debunking of the nanothermite
evidence. The creators of the nanothermite story have refused several times to test for residues of
high explosives which must be in the Ground Zero dust.
Reply
Nathan, on December 14, 2011 at 11:44 pm said:

What are you people afraid of? When I saw the towers go down I saw a skilled demolition and
wondered how it could have been done, but make no mistake it took a lot of skill to bring those
buildings down the way they came down. So, what are you afraid of? You seem to be running from
the truth. Why?
Reply
Confused Brit, on September 1, 2012 at 11:15 pm said:

I ain’t no scientist/ engineer etc I’m just a Brit who is confused since the day the planes hit the
towers and pentagon (allegedly not seen pentagon footage as yet) as to why it was only reported
once on the bbc and that was before it even fell wtf.com :s
Reply

p p
Building No 7 I mean.
Reply

I would say though that Those buildings that fell where surely designed to callapse straight
down in on themselves as would most tall buildings in heavily populated areas…thousands
of tons of steel and concrete collapsing would easily bring down a building at free fall speed.
terriorsts would have done homework on where to hit buildinds with heavily loaded planes
to bring the buildings down. I know a pilot who said anyone who can land a plane could
easily fly one of those jets and hit a building that size a piece of piss. they knew exactly
where to hit the towers to cause most devastion that I believe was the work of terrorist
scientists/ engineers.
Reply
Beelzebub Jones, on February 25, 2015 at 12:55 pm said:

you are confused. buildings that are designed to collapse straight down? buildings are
designed to stand, endure and resist collapse. are boats designed to sink? you should do a
simple youtube search regarding demolitons gone wrong and there are many. falling
straight down into their footprint requires precision planning and timing. cutting all the
support columns in the center first. that’s why you see the roof drop first. or jet fuel fires
may also do the trick. the plane impact is not required since wtc 7 was spared that and
collapsed similarly. but buildings aren’t designed to collapse. to resist fire, earthquack,
wind and possibly some impact but all to remain standing.
Reply
Superdave, on February 16, 2013 at 5:17 am said:

I recently watched a video that made a very convincing arguement in the idea that thermonuclear
devices in the bottom of the main elevator shafts would be a likely cause. The arguement made is
extensive and very convincing. It also explains building 7 and all of the damage within the possible
blast radius. Cars with the tower-side halves completely oxidized, windows blown out blocks away, and
all of the dust produced from the collapse.
Reply

thermonuclear devices are always accompanied by radiation. there were molten puddles of
concrete, asbestos and steel. there were noxious fumes that varied in intensity for a good six months.
fumes that you could smell in times square, in queens and brooklyn. plus no one was really sure
what really happened so they checked for radiation. i mean if nano thermite was used it was over
kill. nukes would have been expensive and i’d think traceable.
Reply
Dancing Israelis | The Skankworks, on June 13, 2013 at 5:45 pm said:
[…] More Bad Science Surrounding the “Nano-Thermite” Red Herring […]
Reply
Ally, on November 2, 2013 at 6:06 am said:
Regardless of who says what or who is trying to prove who wrong . America has millions of peoples
blood on they’re hands .
9/11 was an inside job it is glaringly blatant ,evidence destroyed ,plains hi jacked and flown into highly
watched air space very easily .what my problem is why is the world letting them away with it the
world sat back and watched as America raided Iraq ,Afghanistan and now I believe are trying to gain
control of the rest of the Middle East .If the truth movement do find any evidence it will just be pushed
aside by people trying there hardest to “debunk” there theory’s .your government killed your own
people for money simple as that and they have gotten away with it and seriously don’t see in my life
time any one or government being brought to court for this . BRING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT
Reply
Bill Malcolm, on November 23, 2013 at 5:05 am said:

Never saw such a bunch of useless comments like this, except of course on all the other sites where
complete loons love to indulge in wacko conspiracy theories. What is it about Americans that leaves
them slackjawed and willing to believe completely stupid and asinine theories? You boys are scared of
your own shadows. Hand fluttering all around like little sissies. Israelis waving on buses, nanothermite
paint, steel doesn’t bend and other idiotic rubbish.
I blame it on poor education, no concept of reality in an engineering sense, and blatherings from
grocery checkout boys, fast food servers, retail store clerks and any number of other self-admitted
geniuses with no relevant education, and the need to run a blog to show other people just how smart
they are. Not.
Nanotechnology. In its infancy in 2001. No real production of nanothermite in any quantity at the
time. Scratch that one.
Steel. Some genius thinks the building was made of high-strength steel. What, in 1971? No production
quantity available. Each tower had 100,000 tons of regular old structural steel, and that means the
buildings probably weighed ten times as much when you include millions of paper files, concrete, glass
and furnishings
Steel doesn’t bend when heated. Right. Blacksmiths don’t exist, I suppose. Fire cladding was added to
the steel just for show, I suppose. It’s a heat insulator, applied to lengthen the time it takes for heat to
get at the steel. Why? Because steel weakens materially when heated.
Blacksmiths have furnaces to burn regular fuel with a forced draught to raise the temperature enough
to heat metal to the point where it can be worked. WTC tower? A natural chimney to raise the burning
temperature of thousands of tons of paper. For goodness sake ceiling temperatures in a regular house
fire get to 2000 degrees when flashover occurs. Watch the Discovery Channel and learn something.
WTC 2 which fell first did not fall straight down. Wikipedia will tell you that. Chunks fell on WTC 7
and other buildings. The rush of compressed air is what caused the plumes of dust to spread outwards.
Know what the sound of a hand clap is? Hint – it ain’t the sound of flesh on flesh. Hit your left arm
with your right hand. Not much of a clap now, is it? It’s compressed air escaping that causes the hand
clap sound. Now let a few hundred thousand tons fall on itself floor by floor and you get wind and a
thunder clap. You don’t get dust 2 miles away without wind, in this case self-generated by the collapse.
For my sins, I’ve been a mechanical engineer for 45 years, and if there’s one thing I’ve learned in that
time, it’s that Joe Average citizen hasn’t got a clue about anything beyond using a hammer and a
circular saw for home renovations. Beyond that, I hear theories that make no sense to an engineer.
People don’t even know how to make a structurally safe patio. And then, using this vast amount of
non-knowledge, they try and tell me how things work. Car mechanics don’t know how car engines
really work – they think they do, but it’s all about bolting things together to them, not the real theory.
Like the difference between a nurse and a doctor.
And that’s what I think is happening here. People, with no damn idea whatsoever about how things
really work, can’t wrap their uneducated minds around reality, cannot understand the explanations
because “it makes no sense to me”, and don’t have the intellectual capacity to realize just how dumb
and under-educated they are. Doesn’t fit the self-image, hence the dumbass conspiracy theories put
forward by a bunch of oinkers
Reply
willyloman, on November 23, 2013 at 8:50 am said:

Not only are you an ass and a fool, but you’re a liar as well.
“little sissies”? “Watch the Discovery Channel and learn something.”? “WTC tower? A natural
chimney to raise the burning temperature”?
Yeah, you’re right on that one… I don’t watch show on the Discovery Channel and then consider
myself educated on the matter. I read the NIST report in this case which stated quite clearly that
they didn’t have any evidence that any beam was exposed to temperatures in excess of 650 deg f.
That’s science and evidence garnered from actual investigation of the evidence at hand… not a TV
show positing the “natural chimney theory” so I guess you might find that kind of tedious reading
a bit more difficult than watching a show on a channel that admits they air various
“documentaries” that are completely made-up fiction, like their Megalodon show.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2013/08/05/shark-week-jumps-the-shark-an-open-
letter-to-discovery-communications/#.UpCbzSeUOQE
Learn something watching the Discovery Channel? are you an idiot as well? sounds like it.
For one thing, I know you’re a liar.
No mechanical engineer is going to say the Towers were a “natural chimney”. That’s just stupid
and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the process of designing a sky-scraper.
Buildings are designed to keep fire contained, one floor to the next. A lot of hard work and
engineering go into the process. The floors under the strike zones were undamaged by the crashes
so the fail-safes for keeping fire from spreading were still in place as was explained by the fire
fighters, the ones who survived afterward as well as the ones who died radioing in what they found
as they moved up the building to rescue people and put out fires.
In reality, after reading their reports and the hundreds of pages of the first responder’s testimony
about what they found when they got there, it’s safe to say the fires were burning themselves out
(hence all the black, oxygen starved smoke we ALL SAW)…
NIST made clear that exact same conclusion because they are actually engineers and they took the
time to do a little research into the matter.
I guess they should have watched Discover Channel, huh?
idiot
“Some genius thinks the building was made of high-strength steel. What, in 1971? No
production quantity available. Each tower had 100,000 tons of regular old structural steel,”
Well, that’s all well and good just to fucking say, but if you were to actually take the time to do just
a little investigation into the matter, you would find out, you’re wrong again. Imagine that? A
“mechanical engineer” doesn’t know the history of steel manufacturing.
“The composition of the trusses was not simply carbon and iron as has been suggested by many
others. That would be the main composition of A-36 structural steel. But as NIST points out, in
the fabrication process of the trusses, the company that made them substituted a higher grade
steel, a HSLA steel, for the parts of the trusses that were to be comprised of A-36 structural steel.
They also used ASTM A-242 steel in the trusses. This could explain the reports of silicone, sulfur,
and various other metals found in the “iron rich spheres”.”
https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/sneak-peak-revised-demolition-theory-hypothesis/
You can go to that webpage (mine) and look over the exact competition of the two types of high
grade structural steel used in the trusses as complied by the NCSTAR investigation (NIST)
But of course, these facts may have been left off of the show put together by the channel known for
producing fake documentaries.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/what-do-you-think-about-discovery-channels-fake-
documentaries.2414/
I’m not taking the time to fill in these blanks for you. If you think of yourself as a doctor compared
to everyone else just being “nurses” and you think that way because you watch Discovery Channel,
there’s not much anyone can do for you. You’re an idiot. Not a single person posting here has left
that kind of ridiculously stupid statement. Not only is it insulting to our intelligence just having to
respond to you, but you clearly don’t understand the hard work and education it takes to be a
nurse these days. Your dismissive attitude toward them speaks volumes. I hope you enjoy your next
trip to the hospital.
I write this comment to those who might tune in for a laugh because they know damn well I won’t
let ridiculous propaganda like your comment sit on my site unanswered. I love exposing you
influence peddlers in my forum. Can smell you cubicle jockeys a mile away.
For those of you who are interested, read what real engineers think about the formation of
hundreds of thousands of tons of metal microspheres in the Ground Zero dust… read the RJ Lee
report “WTC Dust: Composition and Morphology” … here’s a preview:
In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of heavy metal particles
including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic, bismuth, and barium particles were
produced by the pulverizing, melting and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder,
computer screens, and paint during the WTC Event.
Combustion-related products are significant WTC Dust Markers, particularly if seen in

combination.
… The differences within the WTC Dust and typical background dusts include the fineness and
evidence of heat…
… The amount of energy introduced during the generation of the WTC Dust and the ensuing
conflagration caused various components to vaporize. RJ Lee
and if anybody wishes to hear from 2099 professional working architects and engineers who have
taken the time to research the official story of the collapse of the buildings and come to disagree
with it, you can check out Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth here;
http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html
That’s a bunch of real engineers who ask real questions and do real research and read real reports…
they don’t just watch the Discovery Channel and think they’re doctors.
In short “Bill”, you lose.
Reply

ok. just a few points. i could care less about nano thermite. let’s talk NIST. stands for national institute
of standards and technology. this institute isn’t some impotent regulatory, watchdog. when it comes to
building large structures like skyscrapers and bridges, NIST sets standards, as their name implies and
investigates any cases where those standards and the known technology has failed. for instance they
say just how strong rivets on i-beams must be. standards are usually set with allowances that insure low
failure rate. in NIST’s handbook one of the first things that must be done when investigating a failure is
to rule out sabotage. especially of the explosive and incendiary nature. the reason for this is that if it is
found that let’s say the rivets in steel beams failed. then the standards and technologies are going to
have to be re-evaluated and changed so they don’t fail in the future. and anything built previously with
the standards deemed to have failed will have to be redone. like the removal of asbestos, lead paint etc.
changed. refitted. upgraded. NIST report did not investigate for explosions. yes, after the fact they
made a disclaimer why they didn’t investigate for nano-thermite specifically. why would they? but
explosions were reported by the police, firefighters and people near and in the building. no one said
nano-thermite incendiaries, just explosions. if indeed that building failed because of the rivets failing
from extreme heat then NIST needs to rewrite the standards. that’s how it works. it’s how builders
protect themselves from liability. look for yourselves. NIST handbook states to first rule out explosions
if there is evidence. i would say that if the police, firefighters and eyewitnesses described explosions, if
even one person said it, NIST should investigate. if NIST truly believes those rivets failed then the
standard needs changing and old constructions will need refitting. but NIST neither investigated for
explosions, of any kind, nor have they even suggested that any new construction need to differ from
how the wtc was constructed. nor that other buildings are at risk of total failure from fire and need to
be upgraded. if you want to be scientific, you follow standards. if you have a model of how building 7
collapsed, as NIST says it does, the industry needs to see it and understand it. there is no way the
knowledge of the mechanism of the failure will risk personal or national security. quite the opposite.
right now these architects and engineers are flying without air-traffic control and supposed faulty
landing gear and avionics. which is a perfect and pointed analogy. who cares what was used. who cares
who did it. it needs a proper investigation. if no one finds these three buildings collapsing in their own
footprint from fire odd. then why don’t we just stop hiring professional demolition experts. paying
them sometimes millions of dollars when all one has to do is set a few fires with jet fuel and structures
will naturally fail right into their footprint? this would be far less expensive than the placement and
timing of explosives to bring down a structure. these professional architect and engineers have a
legitimate concern with their industry’s standards setters. something is off and to label them crazy for
their concern is well just crazy.
Reply
Lenny, on October 24, 2015 at 8:57 am said:

I can only make one comment in relation to the WTC conspiracy theories – what an absolute load of
crap! The steel work was manufactured off site & assembled on site, one floor at a time. The buildings
relied on the external walls for strength. The moment the planes penetrated those walls, particularly in
situations where the planes entered & parts exited the building, the exploding jet fuel & instant fire
from burning debris within the affected floor areas would have progressively weakened both the
internal & external strength of the buildings, particularly when the asbestos protective covering on the
steel work would have been blown off or severely neutralised, precipitating a collapse, particularly
considering the phenomenal combined weight of the structures. Buildings are demolished from the
bottom up, not the top down. As for deliberate cuts to the steel framework, the cuts were clean &
without any sign of contamination. Typical conspiracy theorists with vivid imaginations & zero
supporting evidence.
Reply

On a controlled demolition, a supervisor would walk around the site, marking with yellow spray paint
where the steel girders are to be cut, particularly to suitable lengths to enable them to be easily loaded
on dump trucks or tractor trailers. This is basic 101 demolition, particularly in relation to site safety.
Yellow is a very common marking paint. The cuts predictable
Reply

The steel cuts predictably look like they were made with oxy. Very clean cuts. No conspiracy theory
evidence there. The plane crashes were totally unpredictable & therefore no time to plant explosives for
a controlled demolition. Some people need to find a suitable hobby to amuse themselves.
Reply
Lenny the Failed Parrot, on October 25, 2015 at 7:03 am said:

That is literally the weakest argument against controlled demolition I’ve ever seen. There was no
time to plant explosives because of the plane crashes? Isn’t it obvious the implication is that the
explosives were planted BEFOREHAND?
Secondly, it’s called “CONTROLLED demolition”. You can order the demolition sequence for
whatever purpose you like. It doesn’t have to start from the bottom up.
“On a controlled demolition, a supervisor would walk around the site, marking with yellow spray
paint where the steel girders are to be cut, particularly to suitable lengths to enable them to be easily
loaded on dump trucks or tractor trailers. ”
Like the consistently thirty-foot girders that were loaded onto dump trucks in the days following
9/11? I think the people who demoed the Towers had it figured out.
“Internal and external strength”? uwotm8?
“The buildings relied on the external walls for strength.”
No they did not. The infrastructure as a whole supplies the building’s capacity to resist gravity, as
all buildings do.
“The moment the planes penetrated those walls, particularly in situations where the planes entered
& parts exited the building, the exploding jet fuel & instant fire from burning debris within the
affected floor areas would have progressively weakened both the internal & external strength of the
buildings”
The jet fuel from the second plane mostly burned off outside. The fires in both Towers were oxygen
starved within ten minutes. There is no recorded steel CORE temperature approaching anywhere
near the point where the steel would be weakened enough to fail. Even then, steel is conductive and
would draw away the heat energy of the fires.
To quote willyloman from an excellent post, “4 Ton Girders Blowing in the Wind?”:
“The conductive nature of the steel and the design disperses the heat energy, so that the frame never
gets to a CORE temperature of 600+ degs. That’s why buildings don’t simply collapse when they
catch on fire.”
Even if a steel member or a portion of the frame COULD fail (keeping in mind how building design
would isolate fires), that doesn’t necessarily mean it would impact the rest of the structure enough to
cause collapse. The Towers, according to Engineering News Record, could withstand a 2000%
increase in live load before failure occurred.
“Particularly when the asbestos protective covering on the steel work would have been blown off or
severely neutralised, precipitating a collapse, particularly considering the phenomenal combined
weight of the structures.”
The “fireproofing” explanation as a reason for collapse is very weak. No strong evidence that the
absence of fireproofing would harm performance. The calculations NIST performed to see how
impacts would affect fireproofing are also questionable. Kevin Ryan has an excellent piece on this in
his blog, “Dig Within”. You can search for the article there, just type in “NIST fireproof”.
“Typical conspiracy theorists with vivid imaginations & zero supporting evidence.”
When you check the facts, the ones who parrot the official story are the ones with vivid
imagination, like yourself (squawk!). You’d have to, to think that 19 men with boxcutters could foil
the most heavily defended airspace four times in two hours. Especially when one pilot had such
atrociously horrendous piloting skills, that his OWN FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS CALLED HIM A
DRAIN ON RESOURCES. Yet, this is the same man who performed the miraculous moves in a
twin-engine commercial airliner to strike the Pentagon….right. That’s all on record, by the way.
Unlike your pithy “arguments”.
Actually, you didn’t even cite the official story correctly, in several places. You are a failed parrot.
Reply
willyloman, on October 25, 2015 at 8:15 am said:

very well put, ye who replies to Lenny the Failed Parrot.
The hard inescapable evidence was revealed by the RJ Lee report when they concluded it was a
“combustion event” that instantly melted so much metal, plastic and other debris when the
buildings were brought down. The trusses were flash melted like they were in a blast furnace
and the droplets of molten metal cooled into microspheres while suspended in the air, under
extreme pressure. There is absolutely no other way to explain that other than high explosive
combustion, just as there is no other explanation as to why those buildings came down at near
free-fall acceleration (Building 7 did come down at freefall acceleration) through the path of
greatest resistance. That’s just a physical impossibility like saying the moon is made of green
cheese or the earth is flat.
It’s amazing that people who promote the logic-free official version of events do so by saying
our research and findings are based in fantasy. No. Their absolute confidence in the rightness of
the government stories, in spite of how often we have been lied to, is the tin-foil hat nuttery and
not the other way around.
thanks for the comment.
Reply
tommyknocker1, on October 25, 2015 at 8:20 am said:

LOL! You should beat them to the punch and call these “skeptics” tin foil hat-wearing
nutters. Take the steam out of their “arguments” before they inevitably lead to the
seemingly unavoidable ad hominem attacks.
Reply

I don’t know how else to describe them. In order to believe the official story, you have to
dismiss not only 2,000 + years of scientific discovery, but also 100+ years of high rise
architectural design and history. That’s a lot to dismiss simply because “the alternative is
to horrible to consider” I mean, talk about putting on a tin-foil hat in order to keep the
bad thoughts at bay.
Reply
Lenny, on October 26, 2015 at 7:14 pm said:

You haven’t even got the guts to put your name to it, which sums up your total lack of
credibility. I do love yanks & their simpleton conspiracy theories. Even the terrorists were
stunned by the effectiveness of the attacks, which obviously far exceeded their expectations.
Surprised you haven’t blamed the CIA. The biggest issue is that had the CIA not been playing
‘power games’ with the FBI, these attacks could have easily been avoided. Will fully respond
when l have the time.
BTW, you think 911 was bad, then think about 600 kilograms of missing weapons grade
Uranium 235, enriched to 90%. There are 35 countries at least with nuclear weapons & l can
assure you a Little Boy type weapon is very achievable. Plutonium would make it that much
more easier for terrorists. Their ultimate aim is to nuke the US financial areas in New York.
Homeland Security & Customs needs as many cheap geigger counters as they can acquire, plus
a means to identify lead in containers or places it should not be. The worst decision America ever
made was to illegally invade Iraq & precipitate the formation & unlimited funding of Al Qaeda,
plus the encouragement of groups like ISIS, with costs that must be accumulating close to 9
Trillion dollars. Was the exercise really worth it, just to steal some oil? The ME was far more
predictable & stable with Saddam Hussein alive.
Reply

a commenters wish to remain anonymous does not detract from the validity of their
argument “Lenny”. This person laid out a careful, thoughtful critique of your position and
the weakness of your reply belies the weakness of the foundation of your belief system.
That’s assuming you aren’t simply a paid troll.
That said, you seem to miss quite a few points.
“Was the exercise really worth it, just to steal some oil?”
Oil was not the primary consideration when it came to the Iraq regime change. Read
“Rebuilding America’s Defenses” which called for a “New Pearl Harbor type event” exactly
one year prior to 9/11 and written by all the same neocons who were all over the Bush
administration when 9/11 took place. What you see there is a floor plan for a new
dominance of the US in the new century (that’s why they are called Project for a New
American Century). It calls for endless wars of aggression in order to promote the United
States as the sole remaining superpower throughout the Middle East and elsewhere. There’s
a lot of money to be made from 9/11 for the MIC, oil, banking interests, venture capitalists
overseas and of course, the privately owned central bank system which Iraq is now part of
thanks to the invasion of the country.
In short, oil was just a small part of it.
And, more to the point… what difference does the cost mean to these guys? The socialize the
costs (government and taxpayers paid for it) while they privatize the profits… so how does
the cost even factor into it? It doesn’t.
“The ME was far more predictable & stable with Saddam Hussein alive.”
And once again you display your lack of understanding when it comes to disaster
capitalism. Stability is what they want with countries already on board with their neoliberal,
IMF/WB economic system. That’s why they put dictators in charge.
However, when a country like Iraq or Libya are not playing ball, what they have to do is
“shock and awe” them and from the rubble, remake the nation in their own image, so
instability is perfect for that kind of graft.
thanks.
Reply

Controlled demolition, you really are a lunatic, which explains why America needs to devote
more funds towards Mental Health, particularly in relation to guns. The real terrorists in this
world are greed driven, war mongering Republicans.
Reply
Lilaleo (@Lilaleo), on October 26, 2015 at 8:59 pm said:

Did you sleep your way through shill academy or something, “Lenny” ? Or, are you still in
training, perhaps trying your chops during today’s Shilling101 class? Can you at least try to
make it less obvious? If I were your instructor, I’d give you an F for effort.
Reply
Lenny the Failed Parrot, on October 27, 2015 at 1:41 am said:

I don’t think any shill agency is stupid enough to hire a failed parrot like Lenny. I would
hope not.
Reply
Lilaleo (@Lilaleo), on October 27, 2015 at 7:06 am said:

Oh, that squares it all off then, eh, Lenny the Failed Shill? I am so convinced…
Well, I’ve got news for you. They are stupid enough to hire dumbasses like you.
Wanna Learn Who Did SANDY HOOK?
Reply

lenny the failed parrot is a different guy.he’s making fun of lenny. hence the
name.
Reply

Uh… And, duh!!!
Sorry…. In my morning haste to lay it on Lenny, I seem to have failed to

differentiate between the real fake Lenny and the fake fake Lenny.
My assessment of “Lenny” still stands. My apologies to the satirical Lenny.
Reply

go back and read his comment that I edited. Its fun stuff.
Reply
In the context of the video I posted above, I’d be very curious to know
where Lenny’s IP is originating from.

I certainly can’t give you specifics, just like I wont give out your info
either, but I guess it doesn’t hurt narrowing it down to a specific nation
if that helps. Plus, “Lenny” made it clear he’s not from the US in his
comments.
Australia. Whether or not that goes along with your video link, is up to
you to determine.

oh fuck it…
it’s Sydney and yes, this is also located there:
G. Maritime signals and electronic war outlets
27. Cabarlah Qld

28. Hariman ACT may have moved to Wagga NSW.
G. Australian Navy bases used frequently
29. Stirling WA
30. Sydney and Jervis Bay
Here’s a map of the US bases in Australia
“Lenny” appears to be a unconventional warfare psyops division

employee. But then again, he could also be a ridiculously stupid troll as
well.
What tells me he’s professional is how he deliberately avoided
responding to my comments directed at him.

Thank you, Scott. A geographic area was all I really needed.

well. next step is too see if the NCS has a branch in that town. by the
way, check out my latest article.
Lenny the Failed Parrot, on October 27, 2015 at 5:33 pm said:

No worries, Lilaleo! Squaaawk.
Reply

Ah, mental hygiene laws… well, it didn’t take long to figure out you were a paid shill, now
did it?
Reply

[with so much disinfo from this shill, I decided to answer his comment within his
comment. My answers in brackets]
I do enjoy reading conspiracy theories.
[my guess is that’s because you are paid to]
The only way ‘controlled demolition’ would be even remotely possible, would be if the
demolition guys had advance warning of the plane crashes. Didn’t happen & there was no
conspiracy between demolition guys & terrorists, apart from the fact the planting of explosives
& cabling would have entailed a significant amount of preparation, resulting in people asking
questions. This would have to be the most infantile & dumbest crap I’ve ever read. No wonder
you voted for Bush twice.
[well, actually, there is tons of evidence showing they had not only foreknowledge of
the attacks coming from all sorts of intelligence agencies around the world. And yes,
the demolition project would take months to design and prepare. Three demolition
teams were on site when the building came down. One, CDI had legitimate loading
licenses to do a demo in New York City starting 2 months prior to the demo and to this
day have not explained what project they were working on. That same company is
featured in the NIST report as the sole reason NIST did not look for evidence of high
explosives being used that day. CDI says it didn’t “sound like” a demolition, and that
was enough for NIST]
Someone is goIng to pre-plan a controlled demolition from the top down, with no idea of the
weights involved or the progression of collapse? LMFAO No explosions or external sign of
demolition? Really love reading the rantings of lunatics.
[Who said they didn’t do the engineering on the project? You? That’s it. Of course they
designed the demo and did a pretty good job from what I saw. Especially Building 7.
Look up those videos if you like]
And now the demo guys were all part of the conspiracy? LOL
[never heard of the Manhattan project? How about LIBOR? Wake up fella.]
Sonny, if you had the faintest idea what you were prattling on about, you would know normal
buildings derive their strength from a combination of concrete & steel, starting with lift wells,
basements, concrete pillars & working upwards. This building was designed to predominantly
be built off site & constructed on site, one floor at a time, with the majority of strength coming
from the walls to save concrete, money & time, which is why steel girders & framing were
sprayed with asbestos to protect them from fire.
[OK. You just described a steel framed hirise. Is that supposed to give you some
credibility? You should take a look at my resume.]
Sonny, you obviously have no idea of technical knowledge of the buildings, the incident or the
collapse.. You are a delusional simpleton, which explains why you persist with unsupported &
totally unsubstantiated fantasy conspiracy theories. Time to seek professional help & l have
neither the time or inclination to want to continue amusing you or catering to your delusional
fantasies. Say hi to your shrink.
[aside from the fact that it appears you have no working knowledge of physics or hirise
design, there are over 1,500 engineering and architectural professionals who have
signed the AEfor9/11Truth petition to reopen the investigation due to the fact that the
evidence does not support the official conclusion. I happen to be one of them, by the
way. Name calling only weakens your credibility… unless of course you happen to be a
12-year-old kid.And just for the record, IMO, people who reject the laws of physics we
have amassed over the past 2,000 years as well as what their own eyes tell them when
they look at the collapse of those buildings (especially Building 7) in order to maintain
their belief in a corrupt system they know lies about everything else under the sun,
which you yourself have pointed out, THOSE PEOPLE are the ones in need of some
form of counseling… not people who tell the truth regardless of the pain it causes
them. As for your time… we will see if you leave it at this. My guess is no]
[comments in brackets by management of this website.]
Reply
Lenny the Lobotomized Chimp, on October 27, 2015 at 3:15 am said:

Lenny,
You have the intelligence of a lobotomized chimp. I sincerely hope you’re only writing this
drivel in your free time, because I would be embarrassed to pay for it. This is my last reply to
you, not for yourself, but for the benefit of the people reading this exchange.
“The only way ‘controlled demolition’ would be even remotely possible, would be if the
demolition guys had advance warning of the plane crashes.”
No shit? In fact, months in advance. This is a non-argument, no one claimed otherwise.

Oh yeah, passerby are going to ask questions about workmen wiring det cord that looks like
CAT5 fibre-optic cable, when the Trade Center had been undergoing renovations for eight
years at that point. At that point, it would (literally) be part of the furniture. No one would
care enough to ask.
“No wonder you voted for Bush twice.”
Not American. Perhaps you’re projecting?
“Someone is goIng to pre-plan a controlled demolition from the top down, with no idea of
the weights involved or the progression of collapse?”
The people who design demolitions are control freaks by nature. No engineer worth his salt
plans a demolition without a strong idea of how collapse would progress. In fact, Scott
Creighton/willyloman (the person who runs this blog) has written extensively about how the
collapse was engineered compared to conventional controlled demo.
“No explosions or external sign of demolition?”
Read “Oral Histories of New York Fire Department”. Thousands of pages of personal
testimony to explosions in the Towers, by people who’ve had more experience in those sorts
of situations longer than you’ve been alive.
“External sign…”
Willyloman’s “Smoke and Dust” article clearly shows det cord firing at the start of South
Tower collapse, emitting a tell-tale orange flash which is NOT jet-fuel ignited fire.
>And now the demo guys were all part of the conspiracy? LOL
Of course. Otherwise how would controlled demolition be argued? Are you kinda…stupid?
“Sonny, if you had the faintest idea what you were prattling on about, you would know
normal buildings derive their strength from a combination of concrete & steel, starting with
lift wells, basements, concrete pillars & working upwards. This building was designed to
predominantly be built off site & constructed on site, one floor at a time, with the majority of
strength coming from the walls to save concrete, money & time, which is why steel girders &
framing were sprayed with asbestos to protect them from fire.”
The “walls”…what walls? Do you mean the perimeter COLUMNS? How about the support
columns, floor trusses, the truss connectors, the core columns, the floors themselves?
The “strength came from the walls”? No, the load distribution to the perimeter columns was
around fifty percent, interior columns thirty percent, other structural elements twenty
percent. 50% is not “most”.
Secondly, the plane impact and fires did not harm the exterior column’s load-bearing
capacity enough to overwhelm adjacent structural elements with transferred loads (and force
trusses to fail and collapse…just no). Exterior columns could handle 2000% increase in live
loads before failure occurred.
“The strength came from the walls”? Then why did a lead engineer for the World Trade
Center, in a 1993 interview, state that a study was commissioned…where upon a 707 could
impact the exterior columns at ~200 MPH (some reports ~600 MPH), spilling gallons of
combustible jet fuel into the building (which was their largest concern), without initiating
collapse? Clearly he was concerned about how the ensuing fires would affect the interior
columns, because the damage to exterior columns was negligible.
“The strength came from the walls?” Why did a lead structural engineer for the Trade
Center summon a dozen other structural engineers to the South Tower on 9/11, after it was
hit, to assess the affect of the impact? None of them expected it to collapse in an hour,
because that’s absurd.
“The strength came from the walls?”
Engineering News Record 1964: “[You] could cut away all the first story columns on one
side of the building, and partway from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the
building could still withstand design live loads and a 100 mph wind from any direction.”
“The moment the planes penetrated those walls, particularly in situations where the planes
entered & parts exited the building…”
Any serious engineer knows the Towers withstood the plane impacts. You seriously think the
majority of the structural strength came from “the walls”…Jesus Christ dude.
“Sonny, you obviously have no idea of technical knowledge of the buildings, the incident or
the collapse.. You are a delusional simpleton, which explains why you persist with
unsupported & totally unsubstantiated fantasy conspiracy theories. Time to seek professional
help & l have neither the time or inclination to want to continue amusing you or catering to
your delusional fantasies. Say hi to your shrink.”
You believe 19 men with boxcutters directed by a man in dialysis from a cave in
Afghanistan, outwitted the most dominant military force on Earth four times in two hours,
to knock down three buildings with two planes.
L. O. L.
Reply

Boys, suggest you stop listening to the voices. Have a good life.
Cheers, particularly as I have a low tolerance of idiots & simpletons.
Reply

Our “Lenny” seems to be a female… Not that there’s anything wrong with that ;-))
Only women call men “boys” like this…
Reply

hey. Maybe it’s Woman of the Year, Bruce “Lenny” Jenner? (the joke is the Lenny
Bruce reference… I thought it was funny 😦 )
Reply

it was :-}]
Reply
Thomas Horan (@ZodiacHoax), on June 20, 2016 at 1:37 pm said:

Let’s say the red chips in the debris are this rust inhibiting paint applied to the iron frame of the towers
as they are built. As the experiment shows, this paint combusts pretty energetically. That would, no
doubt, do even more damage to the framework that the burning jet fuel alone. I mean, you can see in
some of the videos the top portion of the building, just above the floors that are on fire, “snap off” in
one piece and start smashing its way down. No mystery. And as the building collapses, there will be
pressure waves blowing out windows on the floors below. IF those windows had blown out BEFORE
the collapse started, then yeah, that might look suspicious. So, all this “nano thermite” argle barge
really just proves that the towers COULD have collapsed spontaneously and inevitably, and did not
require any help from planted explosives–just this ironically rust-inhibiting paint.
Reply
willyloman, on June 20, 2016 at 1:41 pm said:

rust paint is not going to blow steel beams 150 yards from the building and not going to move the
steel substructure of the building out of the way for a near freefall collapse of the top of the building.
that requires a controlled demolition expert and high explosives. not paint.
Reply
pepe, on September 4, 2016 at 11:40 pm said:

You wrote: “Without an even dispersal of the explosive, there is also no way of having a predictable
outcome when it is ignited.”
Why do you think a predictable outcome is required to bring down the building by demolition?
And if the building had been demolished, how much explosive on how many floors do you think they
would need?
Reply

“Why do you think a predictable outcome is required to bring down the building by
demolition?”
The whole point of controlled demolition is “control”. For example, they didn’t want to drop the top
half of the buildings across the street from the Trade Center complex because it would destroy other
local businesses. They wanted to wipe out the Trade Center and leave everything else as
undamaged as possible. And they did that for the most part. In the case of general controlled
demolition, this is also true specifically because the controlled demolition company can and will be
sued for damaging surrounding buildings and structures that they aren’t paid to demo. And at the
end of the day, when you look at how the buildings came down predominantly inside the
parameters of the Trade Center complex grounds, they did a pretty good job, with the exception of
using too much det cord on the floor systems which created that huge plume of pulverized concrete,
glass and microspheres of melted metal. Aside from that, they pretty much achieved what they
wanted to.
“And if the building had been demolished, how much explosive on how many floors do you
think they would need?”
Oh I have no idea. I am not an explosive expert and have never claimed to be one. That said, I think
it’s not as much as one might expect. You need cutter charges (linear shaped charges) for the
structural columns and support beams on the interior as well as some placed on the exterior column
structure as well and then det cord woven inside the floor systems on each floor. And of course you
need “kicker” charges to move the columns out of the way as the building comes down. Each of
them, not that large in terms of explosive charges, but when orchestrated in sequence, they can
have pretty remarkable results. The towers dropped in about 14 seconds each and Building 7 in
about 8. Absolutely no resistance from supporting floors beneath the parts of the building that were
coming down. Pretty remarkable for 110 story structures with a core comprised of at least 40 floors
of steel columns that were 5 feet wide and made of 5″ thick steel plates. In terms of how much it
would take per floor, you would have to check with a demo expert for an answer to that question. I
don’t even mess with firecrackers on the 4th of July.
Reply
philip donovan, on September 8, 2016 at 7:53 pm said:

This is just a posing curiousity. I have no expertise in anything, except maybe soldering and playing
rock guitar. For 10 years I worked for a medical company that dealt with metals that eventually were
placed in human bodies for a number of medical reasons. The company had thier own electron
microscope to do analysis on the various metals and wires that were to be used in the implants. One of
the things I came away with while using and being around these electron spectrology machines were
that every single element or compound in the known universe has its very own energy signature or
profile that only it can have. It’s completely specific and exclusive to itself and nothing else but itself
carries that signature. These electron microscopes are able to read and create and graph the exclusive
energy signatures of these matierials and they are as unrepeatable and unmistakeable as a fingerprint.
some say even better. If this be the case, then, should the dust that blew out of the towers at ground
zero be analyzed under these scopes, {or say, the “various chips” that are contained in the dust}, can we
rest assure that if the results show say as an example, a profile that is exclusive to Nano-thermite, can
we at least say that there is a good reason to think that hey, “hard science shows conclusively that tons
of dust blown from the towers contains nano-thermite”? I’m entertaining the potential that if many
independent analyst from all over the world have even a thimble full of the thousands of tons of dust
showing a certain electron profile collectively, then wouldn’t that be at least a semi-smoking gun? Just
throwing this out there. It seems like there ought to be enough dust accumulated somewhere to go
around the world a few times to be analyzed by those machines that don’t lie, or confuse one element
or compound with another. ?
Reply

they have been analyzed by those types of methods. read the RJ Lee report, WTC Dust:
Composition and Morphology (2005?). there is a link to it on the right side of the website over there
somewhere. I’ve written about it several times. The conclusion they come to is that it was a
“combustion event”… not a “compression event” but a “combustion event”. Lots of material was
instantly vaporized and then, while suspended in mid air, it was compressed. They cooled in the air
(hence the micro-spheres of molten metal, plastics and glass). We are talking temps in excess of
p p g g p
5,000 deg f for that kind of event. Only combustion can produce that result. RJ Lee is not a
conspiracy theorist company. They are well respected and were hired by a bank in New York when
the WTC insurance company refused to pay for clean up of the dust that blew into their blown out
windows and covered several floors of their offices downtown. They were hired to prove what was
and what was not WTC dust. So they created a finger print, a scientific analysis of WTC dust and
while doing so, they discovered an anomaly that turns out to be the key scientific evidence of
controlled demolition on 9/11.
The only thing they refused to test for was residual traces of high explosives in the dust. To date, no
one, not the 9/11 Commission Report, not FEMA, not even Steven Jones and his “nanothermite”
study have tested for that. They even mention in the paper that someone SHOULD but they
refused when I contacted them years ago and asked them to.
Reply
Blog at WordPress.com. WP Designer.

Wayback Machine captures article debunking claims of nano-thermite found in WTC dust

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wayback Machine captures article debunking claims of nano-thermite found in WTC dust

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20171001214046/https://willyloman.wordpress.

More Bad Science Surrounding the “Nano-Thermite”

Posted on August 23, 2009 by willyloman

Later, in a email exchange with Jones himself, even more dishonesty

These assumptions of Chandlers are ridiculously flawed.

His conclusions are simply wrong.

Filed under: 001 911 Writing, 002 Scott's 911 Writing,Advertisements

Jan, on August 23, 2009 at 11:38 am said:

relament, on August 23, 2009 at 4:05 pm said:

willyloman, on August 23, 2009 at 4:54 pm said:

While I am listening to it, ponder this…

willyloman, on August 23, 2009 at 5:19 pm said:

relament, on August 23, 2009 at 9:41 pm said:

willyloman, on August 24, 2009 at 8:17 am said:

“You’re only as free as you are willing to pull the trigger.”

nobodysaysBOO, on August 24, 2009 at 10:01 am said:

willyloman, on August 24, 2009 at 2:00 pm said:

steven andresen, on August 24, 2009 at 8:13 pm said:

It apparently discusses Prof. Jones’ work.

willyloman, on August 24, 2009 at 9:49 pm said:

steven andresen, on August 25, 2009 at 9:23 am said:

Do I have the questions correct?

willyloman, on August 25, 2009 at 10:19 am said:

If you are going to conduct an investigation, official or otherwise, of a suspected controlled

Why the hell is that?

I don’t think they could have made that mistake.

Jessiahtherational, on September 8, 2011 at 8:37 am said:

willyloman, on September 8, 2011 at 5:05 pm said:

Jessiahtherational, on September 9, 2011 at 7:58 am said:

willyloman, on September 9, 2011 at 6:36 pm said:

That doesn’t take a genius to figure out, does it.

Jessiahtherational, on September 10, 2011 at 2:17 am said:

beelzebubjones, on May 21, 2013 at 8:04 pm said:

jan, on September 8, 2011 at 6:16 pm said:

Jessiahtherational, on September 9, 2011 at 8:03 am said:

willyloman, on September 8, 2011 at 6:19 pm said:

The Horseshoe & The Meteorite 9/11

Jessiahtherational, on September 9, 2011 at 10:13 am said:

beelzebubjones, on May 21, 2013 at 8:20 pm said:

Ron, on September 11, 2013 at 7:28 pm said:

jan, on September 10, 2011 at 8:35 am said:

Jessiahtherational, on September 10, 2011 at 5:34 pm said:

I appreciate your work on this issue.

Johnathan Douglas, on August 27, 2009 at 9:19 pm said:

KL, on September 19, 2009 at 11:22 am said:

Johnny White, on July 12, 2014 at 4:41 pm said:

willyloman, on July 12, 2014 at 5:12 pm said:

ericswan, on November 7, 2009 at 7:23 pm said:

a, on November 9, 2009 at 10:15 am said:

willyloman, on November 9, 2009 at 11:05 am said:

mickelodian, on January 6, 2010 at 4:24 pm said:

Otherwise it is basically hypothesis based on scant evidence…

Josh, on March 1, 2010 at 6:15 pm said:

amWiser Kafira, on March 1, 2010 at 11:01 pm said:

Peter, on May 12, 2010 at 3:06 am said:

Jessiahtherational, on September 8, 2011 at 7:57 am said:

Chris, on September 8, 2011 at 10:43 am said:

Jessiahtherational, on September 9, 2011 at 10:26 am said:

Chris, on September 9, 2011 at 12:40 pm said:

Jessiahtherational, on September 10, 2011 at 12:44 am said:

A, on October 27, 2015 at 6:53 am said:

willyloman, on May 12, 2010 at 4:59 am said:

nanothermite is a red herring Peter…