25% Scooped Out?... I THINK NOT!

At the Screw Loose Change blog, a few new pictures of WTC 7 are featured to back up the claim that the building was heavily damaged. Funny that they didn't show this one!

Looks like the building wasn't scooped out after all. Shyam Sunder's "25% of the building" claim has officially been put to bed. Although Pat ignores it, the investigation Sunder led already realized this claim was too dubious to try and hoodwink people with.

Related Info:

9/11 debunking arguments...

Fabled Enemies

Popular Mechanics and others were "enlisted" by the government.

James Meigs and Cass Sunstein - Creepiest smiles ever!

Cass Sunstein, one of Obama's czars has had a paper out on the web for the last two years discussing how the government should deal with 'conspiracy theories'.

Link to the paper:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

Some of the quotes from this paper are shocking, he says conspiracy theories should be banned or taxed:

"What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help."

Real life thought crime! Here's another interesting quote:

"The first dilemma is that either ignoring or rebutting a conspiracy theory has distinctive costs. Ignoring the theory allows its proponents to draw ominous inferences from the government’s silence. If the theory stands unrebutted, one possibility is that it is too ludicrous to need rebuttal, but another is that the government cannot offer relevant evidence to the contrary; the suppliers of the conspiracy theories will propose the second inference. On this view, all misinformation (the initial conspiracy theory) should be met with countermisinformation."

Countermisinformation?! In other words, if we can't debunk it with facts we'll just make stuff up! Or we'll ignore it and say it's too ludicrous to need rebuttal. That's right, the nanothermite evidence is too ludicrous to need rebuttal. It's obviously just your run-of-the-mill explosive nanocomposite primer paint!

But the most interesting quote is this...

"Expanding the cast further, one may see the game as involving four players: government officials, conspiracy theorists, mass audiences, and independent experts – such as mainstream scientists or the editors of Popular Mechanics – whom government attempts to enlist to give credibility to its rebuttal efforts."

ENLIST?! So they were enlisted were they? They didn't just get sick of people approaching them at parties and asking them about 9/11, as Davin Coburn has repeatedly claimed? Here we have documented confirmation of what we have suspected for a while. How can they be "independent experts" if they are enlisted by the government!?

There's a lot more interesting stuff in there. It basically confirms everything we've suspected about disinformation and infiltration.

Related Info:

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes John-Michael Talboo and Stewart Bradley of Debunking the Debunkers

The MO and possible motives of defenders of the official story is also spoke of and put into a larger historical context. Mentioned is a declassified CIA memo from April 1967 entitled, "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report," which states that one way to achieve this goal is to:

Employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories.

Sunstein and Beck Fire Shots Across Our Bow

Your Government Appointees at Work

My take on Ventura's 9/11 Show

I just downloaded and watched Ventura's 9/11 show, and I am amazed this was allowed to air. The whole first half of the episode was amazing. Steven Jones, Superthermite, Building 7, William Rodriguez, Family members who our on our side, False flag defined ... this documentary really put the BBC to shame.

The second half of the episode was okay and I found the ending interesting but I'm a little skeptical... could be more disinformation. Normally when people who know something are thinking of coming forward or reveal part of what they know, they are killed. Whatever may come of it, it should certainly be investigated.

The superthermite demonstration was a bit crap .. and they didn't even show the ending so I'm assuming the beam didn't break. To be honest I'm not sure it was superthermite, the documentary did mix thermite and superthemite a few times. Also it was never explicitly stated whether the particles in the demonstration were on the nano scale. However it did appear to burn longer than ordinary thermite. Which is interesting because it's consistent with the fact that ground zero cooked for several months after the event.

Certain parts of the episode were blatantly scripted and dramatized and I chuckled when the narrator addressed Jesse's crew as an "elite team of investigators", but that isn't a bad thing. This is the type of stuff the public likes so it makes for a great introduction ... it's sheeple friendly if you will. Plus the dialogue between Jesse and the skeptic on his team was a very well done. It's something that has never been done in any 9/11 documentary before - having a skeptic on to ask the questions the viewer is thinking. The skeptic essentially portrays the cognitive dissonance of the viewer. As the viewer goes through the usual mental gymnastics, asking questions like "how could they get all that thermite in there?", to try and cast doubt on our theories, the skeptic asks those questions on the show, prompting answers from others. It's a pretty ingenious way of doing it.

All in all this is the best mainstream 9/11 truth documentary by far and it really shows what a bit of unbiased investigation can accomplice... just imagine what the BBC or Popular Mechanics could have accomplished if they actually bothered to properly investigate it in any way. Kudos to Jesse and his team ... I'm downloading the HAARP episode right now and I'll definitely be downloading the global warming one. I was surprised to see June Sarpong (the hot British woman) in this. I used to watch her on Channel 4 on Saturday mornings.

Related Info...

Reply: Jesse The BSer Ventura: I Called It!

Debunking the Rebunking

"If we start debunking rebunking 9-11 debunking, where will it all end?" - Pat Curley

Pat Curley over at the Screw Loose Change blog had a listen to our recent interview with Michael Woolsey of 9-11 Visibility and has attempted rebunking our debunking.

Pat states, "They say that they are not interested in hearing debunking of Steven Jones' latest paper (Active Thermitic Material...). Nope, if we are going to debunk that laughable attempt to claim that bits of red paint and rust amount to Thermite we have to do it with a peer-reviewed paper."

Yes, if you are claiming that highly credentialed scientists have been fooled by paint, after two years of research, when paint was one of the very first considerations, then you should back that claim up in the way they have backed up theirs. When the lead author of the paper, associate professor of chemistry at Copenhagen University in Denmark, Dr. Niels H. Harrit, was asked during an interview on Denmark television if he was in any doubt that the material was present, he replied unambiguously, "You cannot fudge this kind of science. We have found it: unreacted thermite."

If you think this author/or co-author of nearly 60 peer reviewed scientific papers is fudging, or was fooled by paint, someone on your side should demonstrate this beyond the blogosphere. I think physics professor Dr. Steven E. Jones put it best when he noted that:

Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

Getting back to paint being one of the very first considerations, it's worthy to note that one of the first things indicating the materials were not paint chips was their explosiveness! At the Boston 9/11 Conference on 12/15/07 Steven Jones first reported his findings, stating:

Many red chips I found in the WTC dust, last June I started noticing these. Their attracted by a magnet, a thought came, well maybe it's just paint. It's hard to get thermite to ignite, and I finally thought, how can we tell if this is thermite or not?... It has the right chemical signature.

A friend of mine has an oxyacetylene torch with a very fine tip, he uses it for repairing eyeglasses, and so I had him pass it over one of these red chips... And it flamed, it flashed, as he passed over it.

He went on to state that this, in conjunction with the chemical signature and the red color, was a strong indication that this was indeed a form of thermite.

During a debate with architect Richard Gage 9/11 "debunker" Mark Roberts also suggested the red chips were paint, after Gage replied, "That's why they're extremely explosive I suppose," Roberts conveniently ignored him, stating, "These chips... One thing that should ring a bell, is that they look exactly like all the primer paint that's on the structural steel."

Of course Robert's assumption has nothing on empirical evidence. In a recent interview with Dr. Harriet conducted by national Emmy nominee and regional Emmy award-winning investigative journalist Linda Moulton Howe, he notes that, "In the primer paint, which was used on the steel beams at the original World Trade Center – we looked up the original recipes for those paints. The paints contained as an anti-corrosive: chromium and zinc, which we do not find. And magnesium, which we do not see either. These are negative indications why the red-gray chips are not paint."

More detailed analysis can be found in Harrit's article "WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT."

Also of note is the fact that, as Jim Hoffman of the website 9/11 Research points out, "Soaking the chips in methyl ethyl ketone, a solvent that dissolves paint, with periodic agitation for 55 hours, the red layers swelled up but remained intact and attached to their respective gray layers, and the thin plates tended to migrate and aggregate."

The next part of Pat's supposed rebunking involved my mentioning of the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) of August 6, 2001, which he pointed out I did misspeak of and call a PDF. Here's a PDF of the PDB! Speaking of nitpicking masquerading as debunking, I also spoke of "outward" bowing columns instead of "inward," and I called a reviewer of the nano-thermite paper an author. Just like with the PDB, I knew it was inward, and I knew he wasn't an author.

Pat states, "Note in particular that the two paragraphs which do not appear historical in nature are also not very accurate in predicting 9-11; federal buildings in New York were not attacked and the attacks were not done with explosives."

One commenter by the name of Brian Good on Pat's blog thanked him for his candor, "Thanks, Pat, for confirming that the 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US' memo actually did warn of new attacks, though Condi claimed under oath in the presence of the 9/11 widows that it did not."

Condi's bio on Wikipedia also contains this tidbit:

Rice characterized the August 6, 2001 President's Daily Brief Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US as historical information. Rice indicated "It was information based on old reporting."[45] Sean Wilentz of Salon magazine suggested that the PDB contained current information based on continuing investigations, including that Bin Laden wanted to "bring the fighting to America."[46]

I have blogged about the PDB before, where I pointed out that when we look at it in a larger context we start to get a clearer picture of the situation.

9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza: Government Knew Exact Date and Exact Targets

Rockefeller Predicted "Event" To Trigger War Eleven Months Before 9/11 - Hollywood director Russo recalls remarkable "forecast" of coming attack

Not to mention the massive amount of mainstream news reports concerning ignored warnings.

Yes, there was a section that mentions "bin Laden supporters in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives," which as Pat pointed out, "the attacks were not done with explosives," meaning of course that it wasn't a bombing attack akin to the 1993 WTC bombing, but the memo also mentioned "suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks..." It then mentions that this included "recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York," to which Pat points out that the towers were not federal buildings, but the "recent surveillance" would be in addition to the "most attractive terrorist target" at the WTC as detailed by several reports dating back to the 1980s.

FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, in an open letter to the 9/11 Commission, reported that there was "specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden," that mentioned major cities, airplanes, approximate timeframe, and operatives already in place in the US. This was reported by FBI agents to "Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism Thomas Frields at the FBI Washington Field Office," but was subsequently ignored.

The FAA also received 52 pre-9/11 warnings, including five that "specifically mentioned Al Qaeda's training or capability to conduct hijackings," and two that "mentioned suicide operations." In regard to the FAA warnings a "debunker" would likely focus on the fact that the suicide operations mentioned were "not connected to aviation," while ignoring that the FAA warned airports that "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable."

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
4/19/2004

In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center...

A White House spokesman said Sunday that the Bush administration was not aware of the NORAD exercises...

On April 8, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks heard testimony from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that the White House didn't anticipate hijacked planes being used as weapons.

The article notes that, "The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country." But it then mentions that there were other drills involving domestically hijacked planes as weapons and as noted above, the FAA stated this was a consideration.

From OilEmpire.us:

In 1995, the US stopped plans for "Project Bojinka," a planned terror attack on commercial airliners (12 planes were to be hijacked simultaneously, and the plotters also envisioned driving a jet into CIA headquarters in Virginia). Bojinka was thwarted when a group of Islamic terrorists were apprehended in the Philippines. This proves that the Cheney administration lied after 9/11 when they claimed they didn't forsee the possibility of hijacked planes being used as weapons.

Of course this brought up the issue of how this all corresponds with the idea of 9/11 being an inside job. As I have pointed out before, many people make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of grey.

In a post from today entitled "Was Popular Mechanics Fair?" Pat tries to make the case that Popular Mechanics did not set up straw men in the way I suggested, he states, "Overall, I'd say that Popular Mechanics did a pretty good job. Most of the theories they discussed are quite common in the movement, and the less common ones were mostly at the end."

I suggest Jim Hoffman's essay "Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man" written in 2005.

Related Info:

Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies

Viewers See History Channel 9/11 Special As Straw Man Hit Piece

Nano-thermite Demolishes 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Sibel Edmonds: In Congress We Trust...NOT