Debunking the Only Bad Review of "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7"

I've just recently finished David Ray Griffin's nearly impeccable book "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7," which I received as a gift for my birthday last month and was looking at the reviews at Amazon.com. As of this writing, there are 23 five star reviews and just a single lonely 1 star review, but that isn't going to stop me from joining this lopsided praise party by debunking that review!

Our old buddy James B. from the Screw Loose Change blog pops up in the comment section following the review, but most of his comments are not viewable because as Amazon states, customers don't think his posts add to the discussion. This is because James offered absolutely no refutations of anything in the book, but rather tried to discredit Griffin by using the fallacy of guilt by association, pointing out that Griffin has cited individuals in other books that hold anti-Semitic views. Griffin has never expressed such beliefs himself and any poor choice of citations in other books or bad research proves nothing regarding a book focused on one specific 9/11 issue.

"Sword man" starts off his review by stating, "Another work of fantasy from DRG. If you buy into the work of a theologian to understand science, you're part of the problem. Good old explosive demolition, except of course the explosives are silent. Magical super thermite. Ignoring the full collapse to represent the collapse of the out facade as the entirety of the collapse."

As to Griffin's supposed inability to understand science because he is a theologian, commenter and stated librarian E. Woodworth points out that Griffin "wrote several books dealing with the philosophy of science, one of which was given the Science and Medical Network's book prize for 2000." Woodworth also notes that "the book is endorsed by an architect, three engineers, and two physicists, one of whom, David Griscom, is one of America's leading physicists, being a fellow of both the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science."

Recently it was revealed that Griscom was a one of the peer-reviewers of the the "Active Thermitic Material..." paper, in which an international group of scientists report to have found remnants of the non-magical, but admittedly super-duper, incendiary/explosive nano-thermite in dust from the WTC. Here is how the situation was surmised by "Sitting-Bull" on 911blogger.com at the time:

It took Prof. Griscom 4 long years to become convinced of 9/11 truth. Science did it. And: Some "Debunkers" already claim he was chosen because he was a "truther". That's totally bogus. He did not play a vocal or any role in the 9/11 truth movement prior 2007/2008, Bentham surely did not find his rare blog entries on the issue for selecting him, but did search their database for valuable scientific referees in the field of research with good experience- no wonder they found Prof. Griscom.

Griscom is indeed more than qualified to review such a paper as he has "refereed at least 600, and possibly as many as 1000, manuscripts" and was himself published twelve times in the American Institute of Physics’ Journal of Chemical Physics.

And contrary to Pat Curley's speculation on the Screw Loose Change blog, I have been told by Gregg Roberts, who was one of the paper's authors, that, "The other reviewer was not a truther. And that reviewer provided a much less rigorous review then did Griscom - while also recommending publication if the review points were dealt with adequately."

The architect who endorsed the book is Richard Gage, the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which is just about 1,500 members strong now. Griffin's book is sold at the AE911Truth store and cites much of the same evidence as does Gage. So it is much more credible to say that all of these building professionals endorse the book than it is for David Scott of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, who "Sword man" quotes, to imply that all 100,000 employees of the organizations the Council represents endorse the National Institute of Standards and Technology report. Equally ridiculous is his implied claim that all 120,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers support the report. Most incredible is the mention that the NIST "employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel." I will break these arguments down collectively and piece by piece.

As Woodworth states, "The review quotes the opinions of people who belong to large organizations as if everyone in those large organizations was of the same opinion about controlled demolition - thus conveying a sense of monolithic authority, where none is actually demonstrated to exist." And as I have written before, a failure to condemn the official story should not be viewed as an endorsement of it. One should also not assume that all individuals have been exposed to the relevant information. As Griffin points out in his article "Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight," there is "widespread ignorance about WTC 7," he writes:

A Zogby poll in May 2006 found that 43 percent of the American people were unaware that WTC 7 had collapsed, and that same year... Danny Jowenko of the Netherlands still did not know about it, even though controlled demolition was his field.

A dramatic example of the fact that this building's collapse has not been prominent in the public consciousness was provided in a New York City courtroom in September 2009. Judge Edward Lehner was hearing arguments about a petition sponsored by NYC CAN to allow residents to vote on whether New York City should have its own investigation of the World Trade Center attacks. After Judge Lehner had observed that the 9/11 Commission had carried out an investigation and issued a report, Dennis McMahon, a lawyer for NYC CAN, said that this report left many unanswered questions. "One of the biggest questions," he added, "is why did Building 7 come down" -- at which point Judge Lehner asked: "Building what?" McMahon replied: "World Trade Center Seven. There were three buildings that came down."...

Judge Lehner, it should be emphasized, was not simply an ordinary American citizen. Besides being a judge presiding in New York City, he had been assigned to a case involving the 9/11 attacks in this city. So his ignorance about this building was surprising. And yet it was typical...

This incident sparked a public awareness campaign in late 2010, which caught the attention of Geraldo Rivera, who felt he was aware enough of the relevant issues two years prior to mock 9/11 truth protesters.

Here is the campaign's new ad.


RememberBuilding7

Regarding the American Society of Civil Engineers, it must be noted that the paper "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York" published in the ASCE's peer reviewed Journal of Engineering Mechanics by long time 9/11 "debunker" Dr. Frank Greening and three of his colleagues has been refuted twice by members of the 9/11 truth movement in the very same journal.

As far as David Scott bringing up the number of employees at the NIST, again, even if all of these employees did look into the report, it does not mean that they have looked at criticism of it. And it should go without saying that if any of these individuals speak out they will most likely no longer be one of Scott's cited numbers. Even after ending employment at NIST fear of getting involved in controversy would still be a factor. And if "Sword man" would have actually read the book he would have seen Griffin notes that:

We also have the testimony of a former NIST employee who had held "a supervisory scientist position at the top civil service grade" until 2001, after which he worked as a part-time contractor until 2006. Although this man wishes to remain anonymous, for fear of possible retaliation, he is known to physicist Steven Jones, who has confirmed that he is indeed who he says he is... Speaking in particular about the implications of NIST's politicization for its work on 9/11-related issues, he wrote:

When I first heard of [9/11 truth] and how the NIST "scientists" involved in 911 seemed to act in very un-scientific ways, it was not at all surprising to me. By 2001, everyone in NIST leadership had been trained to pay close heed to political pressures. There was no chance that NIST people "investigating" the 911 situation could have been acting in the true spirit of scientific independence, nor could they have operated at all without careful consideration of political impact. Everything that came from the hired guns was by then routinely filtered through the front office, and assessed for political implications before release.

While not supporting the controlled demolition theory, James Quintiere, the former chief of NIST's fire science division has also called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Investigation, stating, "I wish that there would be a peer review of this."

As to the statement, "Good old explosive demolition, except of course the explosives are silent," made by "Sword man," blog contributor Adam Taylor has recently pointed out that:

...There was no "lack of sounds" as David Chandler has already demonstrated.



Explosions can be heard, but they are obviously quieter than normal explosions. But is this possible to accomplish with thermite? Well, as pointed out in the Active Thermitic Material paper, in April 2001 the American Chemical Society held a symposium on the defense applications of nanomaterials in which they stated:

At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives…. nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management.

The authors then go on to point out that:

The feature of ‘impulse management’ may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level.

Now to the argument that Griffin ignores "the full collapse to represent the collapse of the out facade as the entirety of the collapse." For starters, on May 13, 2008 there was partial fire induced collapse of the 13 story faculty of Architecture building at Delft University in the Netherlands, it took 10 seconds. So even if 9/11 "debunkers" are correct in their argument that the collapse of WTC 7 took 13 seconds, due to the penthouse collapsing first, as opposed to the approximately 7 seconds often cited by demolition advocates who only count the collapse of the main structure, it doesn't matter. To put it simply, if 13 stories takes 10 seconds, then 47 stories should not collapse in 13 seconds, and the 110 story Twin Towers definitely should not have collapsed in 15 seconds.

Secondly, as physicist David Chandler recently pointed out, NIST did not include the fall of the penthouse in their timing calculations either. When lead NIST investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder was fielded a question by Chandler regarding the issue at a NIST press conference subsequent to the release of the draft report on WTC 7, Sunder stated that "freefall time would be an object that has no structural components below it." In essence, Sunder admitted that this is impossible absent some external force, i.e., explosives. And yet now NIST is telling us in their final report, due to Chandler's question, that buckled columns did in fact lead to freefall for 2.25 seconds. However, buckled supports is a long way from "no supports."

As former NASA engineering executive Dwain Deets put it, this is "NIST's Half-Admission of Yet Another 9/11 Smoking Gun." He also notes that NIST tried to "bury these two seconds and their clear meaning" by failing to mention their admission of freefall in their list of changes made in the final report.

And finally, the collapse of the penthouse also took place too fast.



As Adam has stated, "Please purchase and read David Ray Griffins book, as (I believe) it is one of the most important books of the decade."

"A definitive study of what happens when political concerns are permitted to override science and the scientific method. With intellectual finesse worthy of a scientist, Griffin shows that NIST's WTC 7 report has no scientific credibility. A must read for all concerned with the restoration of science to its 'rightful place' in our democracy."--John D. Wyndham, Ph.D., Physics, Cambridge University; former Research Fellow at the California Institute of Technology

"David Ray Griffin has written a powerful book that asks disturbing questions and seeks to debunk myths about September 11. It is provocative, well-researched, and beyond convincing."--Rosie O'Donnell

Related Info:

Peter B Collins interviews David Ray Griffin (September 29, 2009):
Busting Myths With Building 7

The Year in Duh-Bunking: March

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog has published the March installment of his "Year In Troof" series. Faith summed up the major point he is raising quite well on this blog back on March 6th, stating:

Out of the thousands of people who believe that we were fed a load of bull from the government in the official conspiracy theory of 9/11...There are three or four out of those thousands that have bi-polar disorders or anger issues from being screwed by the government. (What are the odds)

For "them" to insinuate that we "Truthers" in whole, as a movement, are a danger to anyone, makes as much sense as me saying that since both of those who recently went over the edge in a violent manner were software techs, then all software techs are unstable and prone to violence.

It is clear that there are many sane software techs and a couple of over the edge software techs do not represent the majority of software techs. So if we follow this thought procession logically,... then a couple of people reacting in a over the edge manner (who believe that we have been lied to by our government in regards to 9/11 Truth,) do not represent the majority of Truthers.

Faith should have said millions of people!

Scootle had this to say on March 5th:

...The idea of demonizing an entire movement just because one apple goes rotten is completely illogical. Charles Manson was a Beatles fan, does that mean all Beatles fans are mass murderers? And Michael Jackson was a suspected paedophile, does that mean he was a bad musician? Does that mean all popstars are paedophiles? You see what I'm saying here? 9/11 truth is generally a peaceful movement and they know it. But of course, that's not going to stop the pathetic debunkers and media whores from having a field day over this.

Pat also employs this type of argument by pointing out Holocaust deniers in the movement.

After Pat called the Pentagon shooter a "nutbar", Scootle came up with this artist rendering of the assailant on March 6th, with a reminder of what I told Pat he should do with such a sweet nutty treat:



"Pat Curley needs to put a nutbar in his pie hole!"

Pat also states in his new blog post that, "The Washington Post slammed Japanese Troofer Fujita. Fujita tried to weasel out of it."

Fujita is a member of the Democratic Party of Japan. At the time I pointed out that the Washington Post was right about a few things. That being said, Fujita didn't weasel out of anything. His strongest opinion voiced during his speech to the Japanese Parliament concerned the damage to the Pentagon, which he later stated was an issue the Bush administration could put to rest "simply by showing videos that show the plane that hit the Pentagon." On the other matters he was more agnostic, citing the doubts and information of "very influential people" about 9/11 and stating that the information has "not been properly investigated." So while Fujita was angry at the Washington Post for their characterization of his 9/11 views and for publishing comments made during an informal chat about 9/11 as opposed to the hour long interview he gave them on immigration, he did not withdrawal his request for a new 9/11 investigation.

As was also demonstrated in Pat's February "Year in Troof" post, 9/11 truth remained "a mainstream political reality" in 2010.

Pat notes that, "The Troofers managed to get propositions on the ballot in six tiny New Hampshire towns, and went 1-5."

On March 13th Pat stated that, "And you won't hear about it anywhere else other than here and at JREF." However, on March 12th 911blogger.com posted the an article entitled "Richmond, New Hampshire Passes Resolution For New 9/11 Investigation," which stated:

To our disappointment seven other towns voted down the resolutions, though the overall percentage of votes in favor (in towns where exact results were recorded) was 23%. In referendums on social issues that depend more on values than awareness of the facts, 77% to 23% might be a landslide. However, because of the painful implications of 9/11 not being what we were told, and the media blackout on critical examination of the official 9/11 account, about 1 in 4 voters calling for a new 9/11 investigation is an accomplishment we can be proud of – it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that questioning 9/11 is anything but fringe.

I think these are all great points, but Pat probably disagrees because the bottom line is that the numbers prove most people don't agree with us and therefore we are wrong. But as FOX News has pointed out, "A majority of the public believes the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was part of a larger conspiracy." Does Pat agree? Will Pat change his mind if and when the numbers shift to our favor? Not a chance, because he's a goalpost moving duh-bunker.

Here is an important year in review item from March that Pat missed.

Super-Duper Thermite: A Year in Review

Related Info:

9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review (2009-2010)

The Year in Duh-Bunking: January

The Year in Duh-Bunking: February

Mr. Deets Shows Curley is the Clown

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town was a comedy, and in his post "Mr Deets Goes To Town" Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog makes the case that former NASA aerospace research engineer Dwain Deets' new site called 7 Problems with Building 7 is a comedic show as well.

Pat states, "It's about as bad as you might expect."

I myself expect former NASA guys to be pretty sharp, but maybe Pat's "snarky commentary" will cut him to shreds.

Deets' site states, "seven problems - One: No plane struck the 47-story World Trade Center skyscraper (Building 7). More on no plane."

Pat replies, "Ooooh, mysterious! No plane struck St. Nick's cathedral either. Or, you know, WTC 3, 4, 5, or 6."

Pat is trying to equate the damage to these buildings, and in one case the destruction of a puny 4-story church, with WTC 7. Doing this is even more ludicrous today than it was when radio host Rob Breakenridge did it in April of 2008.

Why?

Because the August 2008 government report on WTC 7, oddly enough, put the final nail in this type of talking point when it stated that Building 7 was "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building," and that the fires were "similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings."

Deets' site states, "Two: No evidence of fires in Building 7 for the first 100 minutes after being struck by debris from Tower 1. (Yet fire from the debris is the official explanation for building collapse.) More on no fires."

Pat Replies, "No evidence? These retards continually refer to the eyewitness testimony about "explosions", but the minute we talk about WTC-7, suddenly they are not interested in what the firefighters saw."

Oh, How Typical ! Arch Debunker Pat Curley Grossly Misrepresents Firefighter Testimony and then Wrongly Accuses 911 Truthers of the Same Thing

Deets' site states, "Four: No mainstream media covered the building collapse other than that first day, when Dan Rather said on network TV, "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much... when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down." More on Dan Rather."

Pat replies, "Key word in there: Reminiscent. As usual, the Troofers are unable to recognize analogies when they see them."

Pat's words are only analogous to a good point because he omits the un-debunkable evidence laid out in points 6 and 7 on Deets' site:

Six

New York Times characterized as "perhaps the deepest mystery in the investigation," a FEMA-report appendix about a steel specimen recovered from Building 7, rather like Swiss cheese, a product of extraordinarily high temperatures. More on FEMA.

Seven

No mention in the NIST Building 7 Final Report of this mysterious steel specimen. More on NIST.

Forensic evidence of explosives combined with the resemblance of explosive demolition equals CONSPIRACY PROVEN FACT, NOT THEORY!

PROVE US WRONG!


PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Related Info:

Debunking Joseph Nobles: 7 Problems With 7 Responses

The Sounds of Loud and Clear

A little while back Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog posted excerpts of a discussion at the TruthMove.com forum about the scientific paper published by Steven Jones and others in April 2009 that reports to have found chips of nano-thermite/super-thermite in dust from the WTC.

He first quotes John Albanese,"Has Jones submitted his paper, along with samples, to independent labs for verification? no - he has not."

He then quotes Victoria Ashley, "Actually they have. Several different researchers have verified the findings."

Then Pat was happy to report that "The Sounds of Silence" were the only sounds around. That is until Ashley responded and he posted this in an update, "Victoria Ashley points to this 'independent' confirmation by a chemical engineer... I can see no direct confirmation of "nanothermite"; just talk about the iron microspheres and the red and grey chips."

You can see no direct confirmation huh? Did you miss this part where Mark Basile describes the materials as having the same physical structure and chemical composition as nano-thermite?:

So we can look at these chips and say "Oh, they're rich in iron, they're rich in carbon, oxygen", whatever there is that's in them, aluminum, silicon, you can see those elements...

...Now in nano-thermite, in these particular chips that we found, basically, what's a little bit different here is, that the way these have been .. Well I can't tell you exactly how these were made, but.. uhm.. If you go to the literature and look at how people are typically making them these days... What they do is they basically take an iron, for instance if we were going to do it with iron or aluminum again.. They would take iron and take a salt of it for instance, like iron nitrate or iron chloride, whatever the case may be, and they would uhm.. with a base basically, convert the iron into like an iron hydroxide or an iron oxide type form, in solution, but then they basically add some materials to make this almost like a gelatin form or a gel... ...but it basically allows you to get this nano-structure and that's the beginning of it.

Maybe you did miss that, but here is something I know you didn't miss...

Remember when Scootle told you this Pat?:

As I said, they blew up skyscrapers with nanotechnology back in 2001. Another fact! You debunkers can deny it all you want but the fact is basic chemistry proves that the red material is thermitic. This stuff ignites when heated to 400-450°C and after ignition we find molten iron. Since iron doesn't melt until 1500°C, this ignition temperature of 400-450°C couldn't possibly melt iron. So the fact that we find molten iron is proof that some kind of chemical reaction has occurred.

And you responded:

Okay, can somebody see the problem here? Scootie claims they found thermitic material that does not get the temperature high enough to melt steel. Therefore, they must have melted the steel with something else! The mind boggles.

Then Scootle responded:

I have no idea what he's on about here. I think he's saying that I'm claiming that the thermite burns at 400-450°C.

What I was actually saying was, 400-450°C is the temperature that TRIGGERS the reaction. Obviously it burns much hotter, that's the point. We find molten iron afterwards, so heat energy must have been released during the reaction. 400-450°C goes in, 1500+°C comes out!

Basile states during his radio interview:

But the other interesting thing about these chips that really kind of shows you that they are the nano-thermite, (Pat must have missed that too) is that when you take these small little chips and you ignite them... If you woulda take one and grind it up beforehand; just the red layer... There is no free iron in it. When I say free iron, like, you know, little beebees of iron metal, that exist in these. You know it's iron oxide, it's not free iron. But when you ignite one, and then you break it up afterwards, you basically find these little droplets, although they're not actually I mean, as a portion of the total volume of the chip they rather significant, but they're still small because these chips are small. But you basically produce molten iron, which then when it cools down again becomes these droplets of iron. As well as the whole the nanostructure that I talked about there, kind of gets destroyed in large part during this combustion process, but some of it at the end is still there and all these inner chambers basically are coated with a very thin metallic layer after it freezes again, so... There is few interesting things that go on in them...

I basically have a setup where I have a stainless steel resistive heating element, that I basically use that's ... oh... what is it... It's about little less than a quarter of an inch across and I basically.. you know... using tweezers and micromanipulators or whatever put the chips basically in the center of the strip, and then by controlling the amount of electricity that flows through the strip, I can heat it up to pretty much any temperature that I want. I don't bring them, you know, anywheres near, you know, the temperatures to do anything harmful to them, but just up enough to basically get them to ignite, and they ignite in the region of... oh... somewhere a little over 400 degrees centigrade typically, and uhm.... When they ignite, you know, I basically have just recorded them burning and then after the fact you can open them up and look inside for these uh.. these iron droplets and films that I spoke of earlier.

One of the interviewers, George Corrette, adds:

Now one of the things that we've heard; these kind of crude critiques of this study is: 'Well all these red and gray chips, well how do you know they're just not paint chips'. What would one expect with Sherman-Williams exterior coat paint if you were to do the exact same thing with this: take those paint chips, put them on this quarter inch resistance heater that you have, and ignite it if you will, heat it up to a point of ignition...

Basile responds:

...If I have a thermite fire and I were to put that rod in there it would melt, be.. you know, if I had sufficient material there to do that, so... it's just the level of energy release, so, yep, there'd be an energy release, but I wouldn't expect say if within that paint chip there was iron oxide as one of the pigments that they put in there, I wouldn't expect to open that paint chip afterwards and find, you know, molten iron has been produced and now there would be iron droplets inside the residue of that chip.

To summarize, the chips have the same physical structure and chemical composition as nanothermite and produced a high temperature chemical reaction and iron-rich spheres which are a by-product of a thermite reaction. Now, Pat would have us ignore the actual findings and just focus on the fact that Basile is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and thus not independent.

First off, in an exchange of emails with Robert Erickson, producer of the September 2009 National Geographic special on 9/11, Steven Jones suggested that he attempt independent confirmation and gave recommendations as to how this could be achieved, Jones states:

I urge you to contact Los Alamos National Laboratory and request at least three "prototype" samples of super-thermite matches.

Ask two independent laboratories to do SEM/EDS and DSC analyses as described in our paper on the super-thermite material contained in these matches. The results would then be compared carefully with those already obtained on red chips found in the WTC dust.

Such analyses are worthy of scientific publication in a peer-reviewed journal (unlike placing bags of commercial thermite next to steel columns).

So the idea that Steven Jones has not sought completely independent confirmation is bunk. In turn it is also bunk to claim, as is often the case, that a sample of his material is required to confirm his work.

The only argument that could still emerge in light of these facts is the claim that the chain of custody wasn't clearly established. First off, it was. As Jim Hoffman has explained "each of the samples was collected by a different individual who has described the time, place, and methods of collecting and storing their sample." Victoria Ashley pointed out that "the handling of the samples was done no differently then typical scientific studies, and much research out there on the dust uses the same methods and no police were involved."

Pat Curley counters with an admission:

And in a sense, she's right. Nobody cares where the USGS or the EPA (which she mentions later) got their samples. But there's a crucial difference here. The chain of custody matters precisely because the Troofers are claiming this is evidence that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers. Presumably they would like to use this as evidence in a court of law, which has very strict standards for chain of custody.

But what is Pat trying to say? As Scootle has pointed out, questioning the chain of custody is "effectively accusing the scientists and the citizens of conspiring to fake evidence by manufacturing high-tech nanocomposites." Conspiracy theory anyone?



Back to Basile... Independent is defined as being "free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others." How interesting it is then that Steven Jones made this comment regarding the interview:

This is the first that I have heard of Mark Basile's radio program. Thank you, Snowcrash, for posting this interview.

I congratulate Mark for giving this interview and going on record about his own independent observations.

We have exchanged emails which have proven very helpful. Mark was the first to observe iron-rich spheres in the post-ignition residue of the red-chip material. I need to emphasize that. With that encouragement from Mark, we went back to our own samples and immediately found iron-rich spheres in the post-ignition residue also-- ours were ignited in a DSC. (Mark used a different method of igniting the red material, which he explains in his interview above.) This discovery, of iron-rich spheres in the post-ignition residue, was in fact the last piece of convincing evidence that we needed to assure ourselves that this indeed a thermitic reaction -- for it demonstrated the reduction of iron-oxide to iron AND very high temperatures at the same time, both characteristic of the thermitic reaction.

It certainly doesn't sound like he was taking any marching orders, but rather was doing truly independent analysis.

Pat points out that French researcher Frédéric Henry-Couannier was unable to confirm the findings in the paper, however this is only partially true, as Ashley points out, "He was able to confirm several aspects of the experiments, such as the presence of microspheres and the presence of red/dark gray chips and chemical composition of layers."

Couannier does state that "eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed." This was due to him not being able to ignite the chips in his samples, however he notes a distinct difference:

In my samples the red-red chips replace the red/gray ones reported to be found in other samples...
except for, may be, one exceptional red/gray chip i found and described elsewhere...

So, may be, the red-red chips are just fragments originating from red-grey chips that already reacted at the WTC and for this reason cannot react anymore.

The one red/gray chip he was able to find "could not be recovered for an ignition test."

Pat thinks this distinction is inconsequential, stating,"Although he mostly found red chips instead of red and gray ones, that doesn't matter, because Jones claimed that it was the red portion that showed the thermitic reaction."

Well first off, as was pointed out, it wasn't "mostly red chips instead of red and gray ones," it was all but one, which was so small that he wasn't able to recover it for testing. So it certainly does matter that his chips were different from the ones we know did react? Here are two videos of chip ignitions:



And of course these are just the reactions observed by Jones and company. As a comment on Pat's blog pointed out, "What did Mark Basile find though? Funny, again no mention of that in this piece. It's as if Basile doesn't exist, but Couannier does."

As noted in the nano-thermite paper, "The fact that most of the chips have a distinctive gray layer suggests that the unreacted material was in close contact with something else, either its target, a container, or an adhesive."

Since the material has been separated from this backing it is possible that the reaction has already taken place. The red material still being present does not mean that it any longer contains the correct ratios of elements to be reactive.

Another possibility (which was right in Pat's face) was noted in the intro to the posting of Basile's interview, which pointed out that professor Harrit stated the quality of the red/gray chips deteriorates over time. Either way, Pat is shooting blanks.

Victoria Ashley also believes that Couannier did not have the equipment needed to do the ignition test properly. Pat on other hand believes that heat is heat.

As Jim Hoffman has pointed out, nano-thermite requires "highly specific conditions for detonation." The nano-thermite authors used a Differential Scanning Calorimeter for their ignition tests, Basile used a stainless steel resistive heating element which he passed electricity through, and Couannier used a furnace. It could be that the heat in his furnance was not sufficiently focused to initiate detonation.

All that being said, we come full circle with Pat ignoring that Couannier was able to confirm several aspects of the experiments, hence him also stating that "the Harrit and Jones team convincingly show that the red-gray chips found in the WTC dust show unreacted nano-thermite."

Pat covers his ass in this regard, however, by again playing the "not independent" card because Couannier has pages on his website that question the official 9/11 story. I guess this is why he only confirmed what he could based on the empirical data he gathered then, right?

It must be pointed out that Niels Harrit, who is an expert in nano-chemistry and an Associate Professor of Chemistry at Copenhagen University in Denmark, was the first author of the paper. Critics often act as if Jones wrote the paper alone. As Ashley pointed out, "Niels Harrit is not in Utah and did not start off working with Steve. They have different labs and both found the same things. Harrit walks a reporter through his lab in one of the videos."

Pat of course ignores this tid bit that Ashley points out concerning independent confirmation:

This was an article in Denmark media that is google translated. The journalists tried to find someone to confirm the work and they do confirm that the methods are correct --

Videnskab.dk have tried to check the content of the article from independent scientists working with nanotechnology.Professor of inorganic chemistry Jens Ulstrup Technical University of Denmark (DTU) know like the other sources not nanotermit, but he did skim through the article and felt that assessments are made on the basis of 'very suitable' test by current standards.

Another person in the article doubts the work but admits he does not work with nanotechnology.

She also points out, as did Basile, that official reports from the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the RJ Lee Group "basically confirm the products of nanothermite," most namely, the iron-rich spheres, she adds, "But they were not looking for it themselves. You aren't going to find people at those orgs that want to lose their jobs to expose nano-thermite. As it is, we only have a handful of people who have been willing to put their careers on the line for this."

Most importantly she noted that publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is independent. When she was fielded the argument that the "conclusion that this is a thermitic material is not justified based on the data," she replied, "But you won't see that coming out in a paper anytime soon because they are making false claims. They can critique his method, as anyone can critique any study's methods, but they won't be able to show that it isn't thermitic material. When these claims are published, we can talk about it again."

Furthermore, the work of the official investigators at the National Institute for Standards and Technology has not been peer-reviewed! And they refused to run the proper tests that the USGS study alone should have prompted:

On August 30, 2006, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) posted on their website a list of fourteen frequently asked questions (FAQ) and answers to them."

"Q: Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

A: NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

I think the evidence is clear and have demonstrated this thoroughly in a recent blog, which debunks every criticism short of what is in this blog. I also think that much due diligence has been exercised by the authors of the nanothermite paper. I in turn think more could be exercised if they had more material to work with, Basile made this clear in his interview when he stated:

I think there's a lot more things that could actually be learned about the material, uhm.. but one problem is just scarcity of samples.

So uh.. anybody out there who has access to samples and ..uh... you know would like to submit them to be looked at, I'd be more than happy to look at anything anybody could send me, but eh... the number one problem is sample.

The government can surely obtain these samples very easily, perhaps they are the ones that we should be pushing to independently confirm these findings through a blue ribbon-panel of experts.

Related Info:

Amplifying the Sounds of Loud and Clear

Super-Duper Thermite: A Year in Review

On November 07, 2008 James B. of the Screw Loose Change blog wrote:

Super-duper-uber-magico-nano-therm*te

Since the truthers cannot explain most of their theories, they have to create speculative technologies as some sort of deus ex machina for their stupidity, be it real time large scale voice morphing, Klingon cloaking technologies or Star War Death Beams. Like most science fiction they have at least some basis in reality, but are taken to ridiculous extremes far beyond proven science. The biggest example of this is the variations of thermite, a real substance, that they create and attach any properties that they want to for use in demolishing buildings, even though thermite has never been used to demolish a building. Here is a perfect example, from David Ray Griffin's aforementioned speech, 58 minutes in:

"With regard to planting explosives, a new technology has developed, known as nano-technology and it has completely changed the nature of discussion about explosives. So thermate, thermite is a very common incendiary, than you had sulfur to it, and it is called thermate because the sulfur added to it greatly lowers the temperature at which steel melts.

But if they used ultra-fine-grained particles then it increases the strength of this many many times, super-thermate is, uhh I don't know 10 times more powerful, something like that. Compared to ordinary thermate. (grumbling in crowd)."

It is an incendiary, it is an explosive, it removes tough stains! It can do anything! Call now 1-800-SCAM-SCIENCE to place your order now.

At least two months prior to this 911research.wtc7.net published a page thoroughly documenting the existence of high-tech metal-based explosives. I guess James missed it, plus that's a twoofer site, so why would he believe it. Well I know that James reads this blog, so I wanted to make him aware of a non-twoofer article I found while untangling my way through the internets recently. Granted, it is on Wikipedia, but remember these are the same people that renamed their 9/11 controlled demolition page to a "conspiracy theory" after the publication of the nano-thermite paper. This being said, it could have been written by Steven Jones for all I know, but if the people that so hate our "theories" had an issue with it, they would surely edit it, or remove it all together. Furthermore, it is not in need of any citations, so if you think it's factually wrong James, then by all means try to edit it. Until then, we will accept that it is accurate. The article begins with a super citation:

"Nano-thermite, also called 'super-thermite',[1] is the common name for a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition."

The article also informs us that:

"Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives."[3]

So it IS an incendiary and an explosive. Well that is just super duper if you ask me.

Now the question is are these "new types of bombs" only "being researched," or were they actually used on 9/11? Well to begin to answer that question let's compare a few excerpts of the article with excerpts from the peer-reviewed nano-thermite paper entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.

The Wikipedia excerpts will appear in blue, excerpts from the paper will appear in red.

The products of a thermite reaction, resulting from ignition of the thermitic mixture, are usually metal oxides and elemental metals...

Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale.

What separates MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium are not a fine powder, but rather nanoparticles.

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. The red material is most interesting...

It is composed of intimately mixed aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, barium, lead and copper.

Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nanometers across whereas the aluminum appears in plate-like structures approximately 40 nanometers thick.

As Jim Hoffman has pointed out:

These are all features of a nano-engineered material. It is not possible that such a material was formed as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers...

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

Nope, these materials certainly didn't mill themselves, so who did mill them? The Wikipedia article states that:

A method for producing nanoscale, or ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum powders, a key component of most nano-thermitic materials, is the dynamic gas-phase condensation method, pioneered by Wayne Danen and Steve Son at Los Alamos National Laboratory. A variant of the method is being used at the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center."

Funny thing about the Naval Surface Warfare Center:

The Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, (a branch of the Naval Sea Systems Command or NAVSEA), described in 1999 as the "national center for energetics"[1], "the only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the United States"[2] and in 2008 as "probably the most prominent US center for nano-thermite technology"[3], alleges via Freedom of Information Act replies that records "regarding research and development of nano-sized or Ultra Fine Grained (UFG) aluminum powders, nano-sized or Ultra Fine Grained (UFG) iron oxide powders or other metal oxide powders and Metastable Intermolecular Composites prior to 2002" do not exist. According to Indian Head, "research may have been conducted by Indian Head Division personnel but not submitted."- Source: http://911blogger.com/node/2052

Nothing suspicious there, I'm sure bin Laden made the materials. And actually, so what if the materials found in the WTC dust have the same physical structure and chemical composition as nano-thermite. BB guns have the same physical structure and chemical composition as real guns, but that doesn't mean that they shoot real bullets!

At the temperatures prevailing during the reaction, the products can be solid, liquid or gaseous, depending on the components of the mixture.[12] Super-thermite electric matches developed by LANL can create simple sparks, hot slag, droplet, or flames as thermal-initiating outputs to ignite other incendiaries or explosives.[1]

After igniting several red/gray chips in a differential scanning calorimeter run to 700ºC, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high-temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.

"Super-thermite electric matches" have been developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory for which “applications include triggering explosives for ... demolition”

It is indeed possible that such matches, which are designed to be ignited by a simple electric pulse, could contain material similar to the red material we have found in the WTC dust.

As the Rock Creek Free Press pointed out in their bombshell article "Scientists Find Explosives in World Trade Center Dust":

The authors avoided describing the material as "explosive" because the flakes studied are too small to assess the bulk properties of the material.

To test the power of this thermitic material, small samples were heated in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter, a very sensitive device for detecting the heat generated by a chemical reaction. The samples ignited at about 430ºC and generated as much or more heat than an equal mass of high explosive such as TNT.

So the material could have been the explosive itself, or it could have ignited other explosives. The scientists not being 100% sure about this has been used by the Screw Loose Change blog as a talking point against their findings. Which is beyond ridiculous, because they presented no argument that the material was anything but nano-thermite, but rather a debate about how energetic the material was.

So now the question is not if an explosive method was used, but which one? Well, there is evidence for both. Let's start with nano-thermite igniting other explosives, the Wikipedia article states that:

"Thermobaric weapons are considered to be a promising application of nanoenergetic materials."

This is interesting, because as 911research.wtc7.net has pointed out before:

Advantages of thermobarics include:

Avoiding the need to install explosives near the Towers' perimeter columns. The thermobaric devices could have been installed entirely in discretely accessed portions of the Towers' cores. The number of devices could also be much smaller -- perhaps just one per floor.

Thermobarics include an absence of conventional explosive residues, and much higher energy densities than conventional explosives. For example, whereas TNT yields 4.2 MJ/kg, hydrogren produces 120 MJ/kg (not counting the weight of the oxygen it uses to burn). 4 Of the possible fuels that could be used in thermobarics, hydrogen has several unique attributes which could have been used to advantage by the planners.

The flash produced by hydrogen combustion is not visible to the naked eye in daylight conditions. The use of hydrogen-based thermobarics is thus consistent with the absence of colorful fireworks in the destruction of the Twin Towers.

On a weight basis, hydrogen has one of the highest energy densities of any fuel -- several times that of any hydrocarbon. The use of hydrogen would have allowed operatives to install far less material than would be required with other explosives.

The combustion of hydrogen in air produces only water vapor, a residue that is consistent with the vast light-colored clouds produced by the Towers' destruction.

Hydrogen has a very wide explosive range -- from 4 to 75 percent in air. That compares to 2.1 to 10.1 percent for propane and 0.7 to 5 percent for kerosene. 5 Thus it would be relatively easy to design hydrogen-based thermobarics that would function reliably in a variety of conditions.

Hydrogen has a very high vapor pressure compared to other fuels. This would have enabled its rapid dispersal into ambient air by shattering pressure vessels containing it.

The Thermitic Material authors mention that in April 2001 the American Chemical Society held a symposium on the defense applications of nanomaterials in which they stated:

At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives…. nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management.

The authors then go on to point out that:

"The feature of 'impulse management' may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level."

In other words, these materials, in any form that they are used, are perfect for a covert demolition in which one would want to reduce the loud pops and flashes of conventional demolitions. Lacking these attributes makes for a good defense against the obvious!

The Wikipedia article also informs us that:

Nanoparticles can be prepared by spray drying from a solution, or in case of insoluble oxides, spray pyrolysis of solutions of suitable precursors. The composite materials can be prepared by sol-gel techniques or by conventional wet mixing and pressing.

Similar but not identical systems are nano-laminated pyrotechnic compositions, or energetic nanocomposites. In these systems, the fuel and oxidizer is not mixed as small particles, but deposited as alternating thin layers.

The Thermitic Material paper quotes an April 2000 report by Gash et. al. which states the following about the sol-gel process:

"Once dry the (hybrid inorganic/organic energetic composite) material burns very vigorously and rapidly with the evolution of significant amounts of gaseous species."

The authors note the following of the red chips in their conclusion:

"The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive."

And again, this is all perfect for a covert demolition:


The bottom line is that nano-thermite is real, it is super-duper, and it was found in the WTC dust.

The one year anniversary of the nano-thermite paper quickly approaches and no peer-reviewed refutation has been offered. But that's OK, just attack the journal the findings were published in, and when that is demonstrated to be nonsense just continue the super-duper meme implying that it doesn't exist, and when that doesn't work, just claim (again) without any basis, that what was found was just paint. As Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Scootle Royale said: "I don't know what debunkers paint their houses with but let's just say I don't want any of it near my house."


And when that doesn't work just question the chain of custody. Which Scootle pointed out is "effectively accusing the scientists and the citizens of conspiring to fake evidence by manufacturing high-tech energetic nanocomposites." Conspiracy theory anyone?

When all else fails act ignorant of the facts. When Scootle points out that:

This stuff ignites when heated to 400-450°C and after ignition we find molten iron. Since iron doesn't melt until 1500°C, this ignition temperature of 400-450°C couldn't possibly melt iron. So the fact that we find molten iron is proof that some kind of chemical reaction has occurred.

...Just act like he is claiming that thermite burns at 400-450°C when he was actually pointing out that 400-450°C is the temperature that TRIGGERS the reaction.

Some suggestions: either fix the Wikipedia article or remove your former blog James, and then pass the word along that your side needs to put up or shut up!

Oh, and on the topic of magic:

Are there more seeming opposites than technology and magic? Technology works objectively and is usually efficacious, whereas magic, based on superstition, seems to be ineffective. The former is perceived to be rational and is associated with a scientific outlook; the latter is seen to be irrational and is associated with a religious sensibility. But our expectations for technology have become magical and our use of it is increasingly irrational. Magic in turn has acquired a rational façade and is used like technology for purposes of efficiency. In short, technology and magic, while separate and distinct categories in some abstract sense, are now related to one another in such a way that each has acquired important characteristics of the other. - Source: http://www.apu.edu/cris/pdfs/technology_magic.pdf

Related Info:

Thermite Denial - A Year in Review

Put up or Shut up: A Year in Review

9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review

The Sounds of Loud and Clear

Reply: Jesse The BSer Ventura: I Called It!

16 Months of Debunking Screw Loose Change ...

And they finally show themselves on this blog ... to discuss ... pretty girls?!

Comment on IT'S A TRAP!!!:



The ScrewLooseChange guys have largely ignored this blog, except to make fun of us when we make little mistakes. Considering this blog is essentially devoted to responding to their blog, you'd think they'd pay a little more attention. Obviously they know they can't win. Hey guys I'm still waiting for someone to debunk my song. ;)

The CIT Faithful

Your eyes do not deceive you! :)

Pat Curley
ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com
Tuesday, July 21, 2009

The CIT faithful continue to do battle with the Truth Action folks. What I am constantly amazed at is the ability for Stefan, the CIT groupie, to rationalize the flyover theory. Consider this:

"The first thing I’d like to address is this notion that witnesses are more likely to get the flight path of the plane wrong than whether the plane hit the building.

It does not sound very likely to me, and I’m sure to a lot of people. The part of the experience from seeing the plane until the impact was in some cases 10-15 seconds. The point of “impact” was an instance. When virtually their entire eye witness experience involved watching a plane fly through the air, and just a split second of it involved a frightening and traumatic instant, I personally have no qualms whatsoever with saying the complete opposite is the case."

No, of course he has no qualms about that; without that leap of faith the CIT scenario crashes and burns.

"Arcterus said the North side approach is wrong, meaning he agrees that all the witnesses were wrong about a simple left right judgement, and that they were all wrong in such a way as to corroborate each other, and that they were all so stupid they rejected the correct flight path even when prompted with it."

Again, the supposed "fact" that all the witnesses agreed about the North Side approach and "corroborate" each other is actually a strong indication that CIT is not showing all their witnesses. Just on the basis of the odds, one or two of the witnesses should have gotten it "wrong"; the fact that they did not is a strong indication that CIT is playing games with their witnesses.

"1) Logically, there is no damage to the Pentagon that could be ascribed to a Boeing hitting from the NoC flight path. I know you have said there is, but come on mate, please. I realise that the notion that a plane from the SoC path could just could in a million to one shot cause that damage, is acceptable. It is not what you would expect and we all know that."

Is he seriously claiming that there's only a one-in-a-million chance that a SoC approach would cause that damage? Or is he suggesting that there's only a 1,000,000-1 chance that it was an SoC approach?

"2) There is no conceivable logical reason for faking one set of flight path damage, planting light poles and so on and then driving the plane into the Pentagon anyway."

He's right, you know. If we assume that the light pole evidence was faked, then it makes no sense to fly the plane into the Pentagon. And how does he know that the light pole evidence was faked? Because the plane didn't fly into the Pentagon. It's circular logic.

I also love that he claims to be just arguing this "evidence", but throws around ad hominems like frisbees:

"Arabesque is rapidly becoming a comedy show."

"Mistakenly thinking Arabesque was more honest than in fact he was...."

Related Info:

The CIT Virus

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