Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee
Source: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Url: http://cms.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/315-explosive-evidence-at-wtc...
Published: Thursday, 24 June 2010 18:55
Thomas Sullivanan, actual explosive-charge placement technician: "I knew it was an explosive event as soon as I saw it, there was no question in my mind," said Sullivan."Most of us agree."
--- Written by Darcy Wearing and Richard Gage, AIA
Having had the privilege of speaking with Tom Sullivan, an actual explosive-charge placement technician, we have some new insights to pass along as to how controlled demolition works, where it started, and the effect that 9/11 had on the demolition industry. Sullivan gained his experience as an employee of the leading firm in this field, Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI). Sullivan stresses though “I do not in anyway represent CDI and what I have to say is based on my own experience and training,”
Sullivan attended high school with Doug Loizeaux of the Loizeaux family. The Loizeaux family, through the father Jack, independently started the whole controlled-demolition industry and turned it into a highly profitable business. Sullivan, before he became connected to CDI, was an independent photographer during his early years in Maryland. He would be sent to CD sites and take still pictures of the jobs. He became infatuated with the CD industry. The time came when he would do both, being the placer of the “cutter charges” on the primary joints, and photographing the jobs for promoting the business. Soon he would switch to full-time employee status of CDI -- as verified by AE911Truth’s verification team.
"It was very interesting, but also very hard work, long hours, especially in the cold weather," Sullivan reflects. He stated that the days began early, around 6 a.m., and they would work until the sun was down. Sullivan had the experience of preparing a building by placing the cutter charges throughout the primary joints, and then, of course, watching it all come down.
Sullivan notes that many weeks are required to “prep,” or weaken the buildings before demolitions. Steel frame buildings don’t just fall into their footprints at free-fall without major work throughout the building – even some before the placement of explosives. Sullivan emphasized as an aside, “Fire cannot bring down steel-framed high rises -- period.”
One of Sullivan’s most exciting jobs was the colossal Kingdome in whose reinforced concrete structure he personally placed hundreds of deadly explosive charges.
Working for CDI was, Sullivan stated, “a very unique experience.” He also said, "they were a close-knit family -- referring to the familial values of the Loizeauxs." “I learned from watching," said Sullivan. "There is no school that will teach you this, just hands on hard work." Sullivan took hundreds of project photos, through which he developed a deep passion for the trade.
When asked, what made CDI the best in the business, he commented, “their family had all the experience because they ’invented’ the art of CD. They spent years traveling around the world, showing and educating people how this art form works.”
Unfortunately, the business came to a screeching halt after 9/11. "People were scared -- if they were to hear a loud bang it was probably some kind of terrorist attack," says Sullivan in frustration. "Fear took over and there was no more business." Even Mark Loizeaux (CDI’s President) has been quoted as saying 9/11 ruined him. Sullivan had no choice but to leave CDI. Curiously, CDI had a role in the WTC cleanup through a subcontract under Tully Construction. On September 22, 2001, CDI submitted a 25-page "preliminary" document to New York City's Department of Design and Construction, a plan related to the removal and recycling of the steel.[¹]
Sullivan stated that he knew from the first day that the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 was a classic controlled implosion. Asked how he thought it might have been done he posited, “looking at the building it wouldn’t be a problem -- once you gain access to the elevator shafts…then a team of expert loaders would have hidden access to the core columns and beams. The rest can be accomplished with just the right kind of explosives for the job. Thermite can be used as well.”
Brent Blanchard, the photographer from the controlled demolition company Protec, has said, in criticism of the CD theory, that there would have had to been detonation cords strung all over the place and casings left in the rubble pile from the cutter charges. So we asked for a response from Sullivan. He noted that:
Remote wireless detonators have been available for years. Look at any action movie -- and of course the military has them. The reason most contractors don’t use them is that they are too expensive -- but in a project with a huge budget it would be no problem. As for the casings -- everyone in the industry, including Blanchard, would know that RDX explosive cutter charges are completely consumed when they go off -- nothing is left. And in the case of Thermite cutter charges, that may also be the case. Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984.
We asked Sullivan if all the floors in WTC 7 would have to be loaded with explosives in order for a successful controlled demolition. He responded,
No, with steel framed buildings you really need only to load the bottom third to bring the building down. While at CDI we had a job in Hartford Conn, the CNG building, where we did just that. And it worked out beautifully.
Recalling that Ron Craig, a Hollywood movie explosions expert claimed in a debate with us, that there would have been many blocks of broken windows if it were a controlled demolition. Sullivan reflected,
The key word here is controlled demolition – in other words careful placement of charges -- always focused and precise. We are not talking about setting off a bomb here. The amount and type of explosives is an art and collateral damage can often be completely avoided.
We asked about Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator of NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) who claimed publically in his infamous press conference at the “unveiling” of the Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 that there would have been a loud boom coming from a massive explosion if this had been a controlled demolition, and asked him about that. Sullivan said, “With any implosion there is never just one big explosion but rather waves of smaller explosions -- not unlike the percussion section in a symphony -- as each loaded floor is progressively set off.”
And as Sullivan watched the towers collapse that day, like so many did, he pondered at how fast it all took place, and how suddenly and symmetrically they were brought down. "I knew it was an explosive event as soon as I saw it, there was no question in my mind," said Sullivan. Most of us agree -- it's not by chance that the first tower just happened to collapse -- then the second in the same manner. What convinced him completely is when he watched Tower 7 fall that day, "I mean, come on, it was complete destruction. I've seen buildings fall like that for years -- that was the end game for me." Keep in mind that Sullivan did this for a living for several years -- it is like second nature for him to see this type of demolition. If anybody would know, it should be him. But we went ahead and asked him, “Is there any chance that normal office fires (the official cause of the ’collapse’) could have been responsible for the smooth, symmetrical, free-fall acceleration of building 7? “Not a chance,” he retorted. We just wanted to be sure.
When we asked him if he followed any of the 9/11 Commission hearings or that of the NIST reporting, he had the same answer for both "I have no tolerance for people who lie to me about what I know to be true. I threw my hands up in disgust and never watched another hearing after the first. As for NIST, I didn't even watch because I knew what to expect." He did however follow the final report on the collapse of Tower 7 and said it angered him that they could actually convince so many of their fraudulent claims.
Sullivan first came into contact with AE911Truth through a friend that sent him the 9/11: Blueprint for Truth DVD. He watched it and was very excited that there was actually an organization out there trying to inform people of what he was trying to say since that fateful day. “AE911Truth is the most focused and organized group there is today in the 9/11 truth movement. There is no speculation," he said. "Blueprint for Truth is factual and impressive information based on science and physics, and was clear and concise." When asked if he agreed with the evidence the DVD brings forth, Sullivan responded, "It contains extremely compelling evidence."
The final question we asked in this interview was, "How many architects and engineers does it take speaking in unison until people hear that there is a problem?" His response, "As the number grows it will be harder and harder to deny them -- but deny them they will."
Note) Sullivan came out from the East Coast to deliver a short but electrifying presentation on Friday and Saturday night, May 7th & 8th at the joint presentation of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. He joined Richard Gage, AIA, and Erik Lawyer on stage for 10 minutes and answered some key questions about the demolition industry, the CDI family of Loizeauxs, and the way the 3 WTC skyscrapers were destroyed. Prior to these milestone events he appeared with Gage and Lawyer on KPFA radio Berkeley on the program “Guns & Butter” with host Bonnie Faulkner who had a number of great questions for him.
- Frank Ho's blog
- Login to post comments
Astonishing!
LIHOP promoters at 911blogger and truthaction LOSE AGAIN BIG TIME!
"Remote wireless detonators
"Remote wireless detonators have been available for years. Look at any action movie -- and of course the military has them. The reason most contractors don’t use them is that they are too expensive -- but in a project with a huge budget it would be no problem. As for the casings -- everyone in the industry, including Blanchard, would know that RDX explosive cutter charges are completely consumed when they go off -- nothing is left. And in the case of Thermite cutter charges, that may also be the case. Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984."
That paragraph says it all. Did you read this, Willylomen? No det chord required. Both RDX and thermite/thermate likely used. RDX would consume itself im the process and may leave no residue.
Fantastic interview. Hopefully more industry insiders like this who have known the truth all along will go public...
Of course, this wont stop the frauds like John Albanese, Jon Gold and company from continuing their lie-hop campaign to try to thwart the progress of the Real Truth Movement which is based on scientific and physical evidence, and they will apparently continue to find a safe outlet for their anti-truth efforts on Cosmos' TrueFaction forum, who is one of the last persons who still claims to be interested in the truth of 9/11 to offer refuge to such scoundrels.
I think Willylowman was
I think Willylowman was referring to detcord as a means to disintegrate the concrete flooring, not as a long distance trigger for the demo charges, at least thats how i understood his previous posts. Not that I support his views on this.
This demo expert Sullivan, I hope is just the first, and that more will come out with corroborating observations, expert opinions, and hopefully, witnesses to the actual crime.
Congrats to Gretavo, your vision and naming of this website is proving to last the test of time and logic. We are winning the war!
edit: found this at blogger:
Willylowman is attacking Sullivan in this post:
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/11222/
I haven't read it.
Keenan's post above and wtcd
Keenan's post above and wtcd are in Willy's post.
Well, I just read willyloman's lame diatribe against Sullivan...
...Gage, and just about every prominent member of A&E911Truth as well as against just about everyone else of any significance arguing for CD. Once again, willyloman (Scott Creighton) sees fit to attack and smear numerous scientists and specialists within the movement who are much more credentialed than willyloman, while using unconvincing arguments and ad hominem/guilt by association types of non-arguments. 'willyloman' asserts throughout this diatribe that anybody and everybody who disagrees with 'willyloman', including yours truly apparently, are all part of a conspiratorial group that is reading off of a script written by Gregg Roberts.
Apparently nothing has changed with Scott's disruptive behavior and tactics. So, I remain convinced that 'willyloman' is a turd in the 9/11 Truth punch bowl, as I originally expressed on this site in February http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2641#comment-19516
Here is my post, slightly re-written, from February 26 of this year:
-----------------
I've become convinced that Scott, who blogs with the pseudonym "willyloman" is serving an agenda as essentially a turd in 9/11 Truth Punch Bowl.
To put it simply, Scott is a debunker who has inserted himself inside the 9/11 Truth Movement and is more than likely in cahoots with the debunkers who operate from outside the truth movement. The purposes that Scott serves probably include:
1) To debunk all the best physical evidence that the movement has with regard to the WTC demolitions and the Pentagon explosions and replace it with his own pet inferior and unsubstantiated theories
2) Create confusion and to paint a picture for the public that there is a legitimate debate about the validity of the evidence when in reality there is none
3) To keep the average internet surfer turned off of 9/11 truth with trick arguments/explanations and appeals to emotion (ie ridicule)
4) To grossly misinform the people as part of a wider agenda, which probably includes keeping people away from MIHOP by confusing and discrediting the best evidence, as well as possibly covering up Israel's/Zionists' role by utilizing that ol' canard "the Jews did it"
5) In their actions these debunkers are prolonging the unnecessary war on terror, protecting mass murderers, and allowing for further false flags to occur
Reading through willyloman's/Scott's posts, one quickly sees patterns which consist of:
1) A proper consideration of the facts was never remotely on Scott's agenda and his posts are consistently laced with dishonesty and misrepresentations
2) Over-use of ridicule and unsubstantiated rhetoric points to an agenda other than a fair attempt to get to the truth
3) Attempts at obfuscating the facts, with a primary function of psychological warfare
4) Seems to be trying to create a landscape hostile to an objective investigation
"WillyLoman" aka Scott is just another fake who blows smoke out of his ass and tries, but fails, to halt our progress. Those of us who are paying attention can actually benefit by such blatant shillary, because it helps shed light on the agendas and tactics of the disinformation agents. Thanks for stopping by, "willyloman"...it's been quite educational
You need better reading comprehension skills
the expert never says "det cord isn't needed" does he? and he certainly never claims that an RDX explosion would consume ALL traces of itself, so you don't need to test for residues of high explosives.
Does he?
So where do you get that from?
Let me tell you about your "objective investigation"... your nanothermite paper was bought and paid for by BYU, a school which hosted several meetings between the head of the Morman Church and the Bush/Cheney administration... Plus Cheney gave the commensment address in 2007 when Bush himself had to refuse.
BYU paid Jones while he did the paper and paid 2 other scientists who worked on it.
BYU paid for the publication in the vanity press and BYU actually did the "peer review".. guess they approved of the product they paid for.
Ad oh yeah, BYU has a campus in Jerusalem.
And what has it done for us so far? Jones and Harrit and Roberts clearly state in the paper that they don't know if the "red-grey chips" are a "high or low" explosive...
do you know what that means? That means they can't tell if the stuff would "blow up" a dog food bowl.
That's your "objective investigation"?
To me it sounds like 5 years of distraction paid for by an institution that supports neocon agendas (you know, "cognitive infiltration"?)
And if you don't know that Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley are disinfo at this time, I feel sorry for you (who do you think got them started? That's right, Gregg Roberts)
Now, if you really want to do the Truth Movement a favor (rather than just hurl insults and unsubstantiated claims about me) then read this and then CONSIDER THE OBVIOUS EVIDENCE and then contact whomever and get them to stop promoting this deeply flawed Tom Sullivan interview....
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/major-problems-with-tom-sulli...
the reputation of AE911Truth is on the line and we have to curb this before the debunkers do.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Is that the best you can do?
Absolutely nothing new. Your script is getting pretty old at this point willyloman. I'm actually done wasting any more time with you. Bye now...
PS: If anybody ever sees anything new or substantive from wilyloman in the future, please let me know. Until then, I'll be using my virtual "ignore" function and won't bother noticing any of willyloman's posts from now on.
yeah, afte making up all that stuff about...
"no need for det cord" and "RDX consumes all traces of itself"... I figured you weren't really here for a legitimate exchange of ideas.
You know that HiEx wireless demolition controller they picture in the article? It's for short-run mining excavations... can't do massive explosive demolition jobs on major structures.
You know that 1984 patent on the "thermite cutter charge"? Turns out that image and patent is for a thermite igniter which lites boosters, rockets and such. It's a bout a 1/4" wide by 3/8" tall...
how many I-beams is that going to cut you think? They even edited the abstract to leave that part out....
you ignore that too, would you? That way our movement will surely benefit from the old "head in the sand" technique.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Hi Willy, I did not read
Hi Willy, I did not read anywhere that Keenan said we should not test for explosive residue. Maybe you are misinterpreting what he said about the explosive consuming itself and/or casing.
I think this is a case of blue on blue, or truther on truther conflict.
I do not hold anyone including Sullivan and Jones above reproach. I actually think you are on to something with your suspicions that AE911 may be infiltrated already. But I give them the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong.
I hope you two could debate this level headed, point by point because I think both of you are truthers.
problem is...
willyloman never offers anything of substance, just trivial and unsubstantiated disagreements. As soon as one trivial point is disproven, willy merely moves on to another trivial point for what seems to be a primary purpose of going round and round and round calling into question the credibility of all the movement's best evidence and best researchers, and never really coming to a reasonable conclusion. It's just a huge waste of everyone's time.
Sorry, but I've already seen too many examples of dishonesty and baseless rhetoric in willy's posts for me to take him seriously anymore. At one point I was tempted to have willy debate Gage or Jones directly, but now I feel that they have better things to do with their time than to engage in endless debates with debunkers like willy who don't seem interested in honest debate.
hi keenan,
hi keenan,
i wont claim to know willy or anyone in the truth movement better than you do. You are one of the sharpest analyst around here. But I think of willy as i do of CIT. Basically honest but sometimes disagreeable and maybe even mistaken with some conclusions.
Willy questioning why no dust samples in the hands of truthers like Jones has been tested for explosive residue has not received an answer that satisfies me. while willy concludes that jones is disinfo, i look at similar circumstances such as Chris not getting good answers from DR Griffin re Zionist involvement. I dont thing DRG is a disinfo, so in jones case i may not be satisfied but i wont call him disinfo either. Not with the limited stuff i know.
Regarding Gage, willy does not seem to be against Gage but wants to warn him that someone in his group may be an infiltrator. i find that troubling because i think Kevin Ryan, someone i used to hold in hig regard seems to have been compromised and may be a good example of an infiltrator.
I wont say willy is correct in his accusations, but i dont rule them out just yet
if you wish to see a fine example of what Keenan does...
Just follow his own link to his "list" of reasons he doesn't like me.
During that exchange, the admins here had to delete part of a comment of his for posting my real name on that thread and openly stating that I work as a professional debunker getting "paychecks" for this stuff.
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2641#comment-19516
Gretavo and another moderator had to admonish him for making such baseless accusations.
If you wish to compare someone with CIT... think about it. Who here starts slinging "disinfo agent" charges as soon as a disagreement starts? That's all that CIT did back in the day when they were on this site and I was one of the very few here calling them out on their trollish behavior.
Is that what I am doing with Keenan?
Look at what Keenan says... he says there is NO DEBATE about the science of the Jones/Harrit "nanothermite" evidence...
and then he attacks me in any way he can...
but he has YET to post any relevant proof of an argument thus far on the subject at hand.
Instead, he pulls and ad hominum attack on me personally because I dared to question the "nanothermite" story.
I am very familiar with behavior like that, and I expect it.
But I also expect other people reading here to see through it.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
actually that is an invalid comparison
I know that Jones is what I say he is because he lied to me several times about various things, one being that we needed "taggants' to test for the use of high explosives and then later stating that he hadn't received one of the emails I sent him answering his question about how to run tests for the use of high explosives.
Then he put me in touch with Gregg Roberts in order that I ask HIS permission to let Jones run these tests...
of course, we all know what Roberts famously said after that and THAT is when I knew Jones was what I say he is.
and of course later,Jones himself goes out of his way to embarass Richard Gage at his press conference by talking about man-made earthqake weapons.
I mean, do you actually think that someone with a lot of credibility in the movement would LOSE to Jon Gold in your poll over there if it was ONLY me who felt this way?
The truth is, Jones led us on a 5 year snipe hunt, based on the kind of "science" that makes an editor of the vanity press publication QUIT because it's "not science"
Why don't you ask Jones when he is going to COMPLETE the publication process?
You think he has?
The next step in the pubishing process for scientific material is to PRESENT his findings, in public, before other chemists and related scientists, and then answer questions that they put to him.
Jones didn't even want to talk about nanothermite at the Gage Press conference, much less present his findings to a scholarly panel of chemists and other scientists.
He hs yet to do it. why?
no. there are MANY out there who have ample reason to start wondering about Jones, not just me. But like my dislike for CIT, I just happened to be one of the first.
We need to run these tests that I and others are talking about.
don't any of you find it ODD that a guy from the primary suspect group all of a sudden pops up and starts trying to discredit det cord theory NOW... after all these years... and he does it in such a ham handed and obviously staged way?
This is not a coincidence folks.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Juan, I have no problem with people
honestly critiquing or debating anyone in the truth movement. Where people cross the line, as willy has done numerous times, is when they engage in misrepresentations of people's positions, dishonesty, unsubstantiated rhetoric - baseless accusations, ad hominems and guilt by association, etc. I feel I have made my case here in this thread and in other threads about willy's JREF style tactics. Like JREFers, willy appears to have learned enough terminology to sound like he knows what he is talking about, but ultimately you begin to see over time that he engages in sophistry and endlessly argues trivialities, while filling his posts with baseless and over the top rhetoric. On numerous occasions, willy has shown himself to be uninterested in the evidence, and has continued to make arguments that have already been discredited or shown to have no merit. I don't have time right now to walk you through his posts and pick apart every line to show you the JREF style of time wasting and rebunking that he uses, as I've already spent way more time on this blog today than I should have, but perhaps sometime in the future when I have time to waste I might. If anyone else wants to chime in about willy's tactics, be my guest.
begging for backup huh?
"If anyone else wants to chime in about willy's tactics, be my guest."
So now I am "JREF"? A while ago I was a paid disinfo agent waiting for my next "paycheck"
well, I guess that is a step in the right direction.
Now, let me tell you about how I "learned enough terminology to sound like he knows what he is talking about"
... I carefully researched it and I wrote it over the past 4 years.
this is one of my more popular ones from May of 2009..."9/11 Shock Opera… Act 4 – Building 7 and Flight 93: The Grand Finale that Wasn’t"
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/911-shock-opera-act-4-%e2%80%...
I also spent a good deal of time exposing the Cheonan false flag event and my writing was actually covered in the MSM in South Korea...
the following link will take you to a dozen researched articles I did on that topic...
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/category/sinking-of-the-cheonan/
I also spent a lot of time working on the live blogging of the Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara and subsequent follow-up articles on that...
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/category/israel-attacks-gaza-flotilla/
You see, I research and write about many events and issues that are important to what we are trying to do these days.
Tons of research on the construction of the Towers, on demolition practices, on the political history behind what happened... writing, cad drawings, 3d models...
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/the-23000-missing-trusses-of-...
countless hours of work for the good of the Truth movement...
all of which I am PROUD to sign my real name to...
and you are convinced that I am a "paid disinfo agent" or a "JREF" shill... simply because I write something you don't like about Neils Harrit (a guy who claimed there were "hundreds and hundreds of tons of UNEXPLODED thermetic material in the Trade Center dust"?)
I am very interested in the evidence... what YOU seem to be uninterested in is the fact that Tom Sullivan never said that those wireless detonators didn't need det cord.
He never said it. Not in the article and not in the interview. Never said it.
and he certainly never said that RDX would consume the traces of high explosive residue either.
THAT is the "evidence"... now who is ignoring what?
and I don't need to ask people to agree with me. I sign my work, I stand on my own for what I know is right. alone or not.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
WillyLoman Bashing?
There's a problem here. Is Willy disinfo? A JREF shill? Someone here seems to think so and isn't too shy about it. The moderators here don't seem to care too much about that.
On the other hand, it seems Willy is able to freely post here so I don't think the moderators are are as convinced about WillyLoman. But again, they don't seem to care too much about how Willy is being treated and even throw a few kicks in themselves here and there.
I'm a little perplexed. It seems pretty simple and obviously very relevant to 911 Truth. Willy's main point is that the scientists with the samples could easily test for high explosives but have not. My understanding is that these tests are routine when it's suspected that a crime involved explosives. Preliminary tests are pretty cheap and probably freely available to the scientists who apparently also have samples available to them and who have already tested for more exotic substances not commonly used in demolitions. Not only that but BYU is actually paying Stephen Jones and providing an office for him. There is no reason NOT to run at least preliminary tests for high explosives.
Willy claims one scientist even suggested to him that the tests should not be done because it might hurt the movement if the tests were negative.
WTF? That's a pretty big freaking red flag if you ask me. I haven't read the entire e-mail but I have been presented with no valid reason not to trust WillyLoman and how he's presented this comment apparently by Greg Roberts.
He's perfectly in bounds from where I'm standing. And I find the information about Jones / BYU / Research Funding / Dick Cheney to also be pretty damn interesting.
At first I thought Jones was fired. Then, for some reason, I changed to the idea that he was 'forced to retire'. Only recently did I find out that Stephen Jones decided to retire himself. And it was before BYU completed their review of his work regarding thermite / thermate and 9/11.
I wonder what this review would have or could have uncovered? Why did Jones retire before the review was complete? What a horrible move Stephen Jones! You had BYU just about ready to review your work!!!
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
The review was to have been conducted at three levels: BYU administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, and the Physics Department.
Jones' placement on paid leave drew criticism from the American Association of University Professors and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Both organizations are long time critics of BYU's record on academic freedom.[24] Jones "welcomed the review" because he hoped it would "encourage people to read his paper for themselves," however the review was abandoned (contrary to Jones' request) when Jones elected to retire, effective January 1, 2007.[25]
Wouldn't this be the perfect way to inject Cass type infiltrators into the movement?
I'm not saying this is true...I'm theorizing based on what Willy is sharing with us. I'm not sure why the lady resigned. If she resigned in protest of Jones paper, then that's going to be a strike against Jones and his research.
Interview with former editor of The Open Chemical Physics Journal
This is translated from Danish to English by Google Translate.
Thanks Jpass
I have to admit, I didn't expect anything else when I started to seriously question the 9/11Truth orthadoxy of the "nanothermite" theory, but I have to say I am a little surprised that it happens with such regularity on this site.
And remember, I didn't start on this thread out of the blue... Keenan directed the second comment to me...
"That paragraph says it all. Did you read this, Willylomen? No det chord required. Both RDX and thermite/thermate likely used. RDX would consume itself im the process and may leave no residue."
I simply asked how he came to the conclusion from that paraghraph and from the entire article, that "no det cHord" was required and that RDX "may" consume it's own residue.
Neither of those two things are stated in the article by Wears and certainly not stated by Tom Sullivan... for that matter Sullivan also never said "thermite/thermate likely used"
Not only did Keenan never answer those questions (which are relavent) but then, as you point out, it just became one Willyloman Bashing comment after the other.
My favorite being that he accused my of demeaning Jones by the "guilt by association" tactic because I simply pointed out how closely he was working with Roberts and Hoffman, two people who I know the members of this site consider disinfo (and rightly so)
But of course, Keenan forgets to mention the fact that he himself argued the exact same point back in 2007 when Jones broke off from his original group to go to work with Hoffman and Roberts.
Keenan wrote this in 2007 in an article titled "What's up with Prof. Jones joining forces with disinfo king extraordinaire Jim Hoffman?":
"Stephen Jones is also ideally positioned to fill another role: the creation of an overly narrow demolition theory (relying solely on weak evidence of thermate/thermite) that can be easily debunked, while serving to spoil any inquiry into a more insidious possibility and denouncer of anyone who dared to question the veracity of that narrow demolition theory."
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/28
All I was trying to do was to get people here to see that Darcy Wearing's article (the one posted above) has serious flaws in it. Especially the version that is still, to this day, up on AE911Truth.
These problems reflect poorly on us as a movement and Richard Gage specifically.
I argued that these glaring mistakes, illustrations used that were NOT what they claimed they were, and invalid conclusions draw from Tom Sullivan's testimony, would ALL be used against our movement by the debunking assholes... which they certainly have been.
I asked people here to seriously consider what I pointed out on my site and to contact AE911Truth to get them to modify these mistakes.
But instead we got a flame-war bashing me rather that discussing the legitimacy of my points about this specific article.
Since then I have been in direct contact, extensively, with Darcy Wearing.
I have shown him that the claims, specifically with regard to the Power Point slides and the captions below them, are erronious, they are not sourced with links in his article so that the readers can see what they really are, he is taking Sullivan's quote out of context and assigneing an unquoted conclusion to them, and they have even misspelled "det cHord"...
Wearing's responces were deliberate obfuscation that he himself didn't write. He lied to me on at least one occasion, he refused my invitation to include Richard Gage in the communications with me on more than one occation, he refused to tell me who was helping him write answers to me
He promised to at least provide links in his article to the sources for the images (the patent for the 1984 thermite "igniter" and the mining company's wireless detonation inniciator) but at this moment he has still not done that and he has not corrected even the spelling mistatke, much less the erroneous partial quotes from Sullivan taken out of context.
as of this moment, Friday morning 8:00am EDT, that article remains on the site, as is, complete with glaring mistakes and misinformation, that the author KNOWS ABOUT.
This is a serious problem.
I know for a fact, having been in comminication as well, with a certain individual acting as a go-between with me and Gregg Roberts (he was communicating Roberts wish that I remove all the references to his email that suggested he didn't want to test for explosive residue), that there seems to be a deliberate campaing underway to undermine the credibility of both Gage and Griffin and it is being orchistrated, in my opinion, by the same guy who brought us Jim Hoffman's "believe the official story about the Pentagon" disinfo.
I am writing an article about the whole thing now.
Yes, I am concerned about being attacked here but more importantly it bothers me that so few seem to care about this obvious disinfo posted right on the front of AE911Truth's site. It is very damaging to the respectability of one of the most respectable organizations in the movement, and now, based on the communications with it's author, I can tell you, it certainly isn't by accident.
The latest theme here being that we need to spend less time arguing about the FACTS of HOW they did it, and just keep convincing people that the towers were demoed in the first place (how you do that without knowing the FACTS about how that was done is beyond me. How many people are going to be convinced by the "exploding paint" theory?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
The latest theme here being
That's what Gretavo was suggesting and I totally disagree. I'm spending some time reading your material this morning.
I know barely anything about those two people. It's not accurate that
'...the members of this site consider disinfo'.
I don't because I haven't studied or made that judgment yet. I find the e-mail snippet you posted from Greg Roberts disturbing to say the least and Kevin Barrett story about the V-4-Vendetta guy standing outside the private residence they were meeting at seems right up the alley of a cognitive infiltrator intimidating people.
I have a question for you Willy...and anyone else that can asnwer...
The editor of the peer reviewed journal where Jones had his paper published resigned because of it and claims she did not approve including Jones article. So do you know who did make the approval?
Also, can you provide a version of your material that is less caustic and accusatory? I'm not saying your conclusions are wrong but I would not be allowed to re-post any of this for discussion on 9/11blogger.com. The stuff about the CDI employee scratching his face or ear or whatever could be left out all together. And is Dwain Deets really the 'father of the modern DRONE and REMOTE PILOTING OF COMMERCIAL AIRLINERS'
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/11222/
I don't know Jpass, but that is a very good question
from what I understood, they waited til the chief editor went on vacation, then they got her fill-in to publish it, as that I am sure by now people understand she would not have.
I never heard about Jones taking his leave by choice (as I figured BYU was just doing their part to help the Cheney administation) and that the BYU review of the flawed paper stopped at that point.
That is a very telling piece of the puzzle, Jpass.
Please tell me more about this V-4-Vendetta guy and the Barrett story as that I have not heard that either...
Interesttingly, just after posting my earlier comment, I got my "final" email from Darcy Wearing...
well, it comes from his yahoo email address by the IP is from Cali and Wearing lives in Canada, PLUS it is not signed by Wearing...
Greg Roberts lives in Cali.
Also, Roberts popped up first with Jim Hoffman whose task it seems was to keep people from investigating what hit the Pentagon...
Now there isn't much about "Gregg" Roberts' professional history prior to his joining forces with Jim Hoffman...
but I did find something interesting... more on that when I complete my new article....
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest everyone here considers Hoffman disinfo... I certainly do. I know that wasn't flight 77 that hit the Pentagon... and I don't think it flew over it either... they took the poles down for a reason, and that is so the carbon fiber wings of the drone that was painted to LOOK like Flight 77 didn't shatter prior to striking it's target, the wall outside the office of the Dov Zacheim led investigation into the missing 2.3 trillion dollars...
but that is just my guess...
anyway... I should not have characterized everyone on this site in that way. Some still have faith in Hoffman, and that is understandable. My bad.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
v-4
v-4 vendetta
http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/06/tales-of-hoffman.html
Everyone is resigning
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Two+project+censored+judges+resign+over+9%...
So Jones attention at Project Censored also resulted in resignations of two of the judges:
AND
In his resignation letter, Solomon wrote: "Of course, as a Project Censored judge, I've disagreed with the selection of certain stories over the years. That doesn't bother me. But it's not enough for us to make the case that a story has been excluded or under-reported in the mass media. Stories promoted by Project Censored, especially with the kind of emphasis that comes with designating a keynoter key·noter, should also meet reasonably high standards of sourcing and evidence. Unfortunately, I don't see this as an isolated incident," he wrote. "I've become increasingly uncomfortable with the standards that Project Censored has evidently adopted on the subject of 9/11."
expect to hear this rallying cry elsewhere...
"I've become increasingly uncomfortable with the standards that [insert organization here] has evidently adopted on the subject of 9/11."
Yea I see that
Sure. But that doesn't rule out the possibility that these people really do have credible reservations about the science and methods used in this situation.
Do you think Solomans
Do you think Solomans problem is the science used or is he just politically cowardly? I would guess the latter. He likes his semi-mainstream media shine. Don't want to sully that with "conspiracy theories".
Wasn't that lady editor
Wasn't that lady editor involved in explosives research herself and claimed not to know anything about the topic.
The editor said she quit because the paper wasn't science..
... she said it's publication was "political"
Jones had been running around for years letting people think he had been forced into early retirement by BYU when in fact he still had an office there, they paid for the nanothermite paper research, they paid 2 other scientists to work on the paper, and they bumped Jones to Professor Emeritus status during all this. BYU paid for the publication AND supposedly, another BYU faculty member did the "peer review"
All of that is from Jones' own admission (some several years later)
THAT is the story of the "nanothermite paint chips"... it is bought, paidfor, presented by, an institution dedicated to helping the president (Bush)
THAT is what she meant by "political"
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
victory declared
The point is that the movement has been declaring a decisive victory ever since Jones was published in a 'peer reviewed journal'.
I'm not trying to hate on Jones or what some consider the most convincing evidence for controlled demolition. But the truth is that the victory is not as clean and decisive as people present it to be. When you look at the facts surrounding the publication of this peer reviewed paper there are many questionable actions that the movement has never addressed.
Not only did the editor resign, but the inclusion of the paper seems to have take an alternate route then what is normal.
If the editor resigned then who gave the green light to publish the paper?
That's what we were TOLD to do, Jpass
Took me a while to find this...
Remember what Jones and his supporters did right after his paper was "published"? They ran around telling people that ONLY this theory could be disucssed because it was the ONLY one with "peer reviewed" status and PUBLISHED...
Well, we know it was "peer reviewed" by BYU and the publishing was paid for by BYU...
I wrote about all this a year ago...
"I just found this little gem in forum over at WTCDemolition. Apparently Prof Jones is telling “truthers” at 911 Blogger how they should think, what they should consider as “valid”, and what the ultimate criteria for consideration of evidence should be. “Peer Review” acceptance is apparently the end-all/be-all “truth meter” now. And anything else isn’t “peer reviewed” isn’t “serious” according to Prof Jones.
Isn’t that the same thing the debunkers used to try and discredit us with years ago?
He goes on to say that his paper has the “imprimatur of peer-review” and that NOW we are no longer in the realm of “Big Foot and Elvis sightings”. Well, that is according to Prof Jones, his “active thermitic material” theory… is not in that realm, that is to say. What does that bode for the rest of the 9/11 Truth Movement?
Is that where everyone else’s hard work in the 911 movement dwells Prof Jones? With “Big Foot” and Elvis?" scott creighton
"“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.
So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, “is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?” If not, you can and should say — “I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. “ Jones (see full comment left here at 911 Blogger, at the end of this article)" Steven Jones (emphisis added)
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/the-good-prof-jones-now-tells...
"So much for thinking for ourselves and considering the validity of the arguments based on reasoning and logic. Now, Prof Jones has graciously told us how to think, what is “serious” and what isn’t, and what we should “say” while discussing these things." scott creighton
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
The Nanothermite Story; Brought to you by BYU
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/neoliberal-byu-financed-and-p...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
i think this deserves a read
i think this deserves a read by all. am not yet convinced that jones is a plant, but i wont put all my eggs in his basket.
i am very weary of gregg roberts, who is he and what is he doing?
I'll tell you what I know so far about Gregg Roberts
Roberts popped onto the truth scenes working with Jim Hoffman doing everything they could to keep Truth advocates from looking into what hit the Pentagon.
Since then he has wormed his way into AE911Truth and ever since that, Gage has spent more and more time promoting Steven Jones' "nanothermite" story.
I have now made contact with two people who claim to represent Gregg Roberts... Darcy Wearing (Toronto) and John Michael Talboo (Philly)
I cannot find anything on a "Gregg" Roberts prior to 911 Truth info but I did find a Greg Roberts...
"Greg" Robets used to be a vice president for a company called L-3 Communications Systems East. They are a government/defense department contractor.
They also specialize in intelligence services provided to ... the National Security Agency.
Their main office is in... Philly... and they have a branch office, L-3 Electronics systems, in Toronto.
L-3 bought up Titan and now is called L-3 Titan. They are the ones who were contracted to run torture sessions in Abu ghraib, as well as other contracts.
In 2008, L-3 won a contract to operate the Global Hawks for NASA... through Dreyden Flight Research Facility...
"Gregg" Roberts brought on Dwain Deets... Deets used to run the Dryden Flight Research Facility back when it was developing drones as well as the Global Hawk.
"Gregg" Roberts ran around doing Truth lectures with Deets for awhile and has written at least one paper with him.
L-3 also has a "West" division... you know where that is located? Salt Lake City, Utah... just down the road from... BYU.
I don't know if it's the same Greg Roberts, but it is certainly a remarkable coincidence if it isn't.
One more thing... almost a year ago when I starting talking to this John Michael Talboo, he was trying to tell me that Richard Gage was making all this money doing this Truth work.. and that Gage wasn't doing architecture anymore. He also tried planting some ideas about Griffin.
I get the feeling these guys are L-3 and that there task is to undermine credible aspects of the truth movement.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Thanks, i have been
Thanks, i have been reluctant to be over critical of Jones partly because I have been critical of Jon Gold trying to undermine both CD and Jones.
Jon Gold does undermine CD.. but then again, so does Jones
Two sides of the same coin. Ones says it isn't important so we should focus on LIHOP anti-Muslim bullshit (which will get us no-where) while the other tells us that ONLY his PEER REVIEWED theory is worthy of talking about, the same PEER REVIEWED work paid for by BYU, reviewed by BYU, and written at BYU... (which still gets us nowhere unless you think a 32nd of an inch of "paint" can "blow up" 5' x 3' columns of 5" thick structural steel.)
The iron spheres ARE the key. They are the trusses and the metal floor pans and the ONLY way for them to have been turned into tiny droplets of metal... is massive amounts of high explosives...
the kind Steven Jones wont test for.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Anyone?
The only argument is "we already found thermite...no need to look for other explosives"
I made some comments regarding this topic at 911Blogger.com recently and no one seems to really care much about it. Pretty much the same here at WTCDemolition.com.
see: http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-06/wtc-7-sound-evidence-explosions#co...
SInce this is a fact, and since there are fewer who have access to nanothermite than conventional explosives, it seems that this is the best evidence. It points to only a few military contractors as manufacturers.
Besides, I don't think they were looking for nanothermite. They were examining the dust to see what was there. What they found was nanothermite and its byproducts."
Hi Jpass, more people might
Hi Jpass, more people might care but are reluctant to state a position because of the paucity of information. I find it very hard to be critical of Jones given his history and the perception, including mine, that he has championed the cause of 9-11 truth. It would be very hard to just say I was taken for a ride all this time. Before I say that, I would want very strong proof that I was taken for a ride. There is a subtlety in the narrative that allows it to go either way, Jones may indeed be a champion of truth or one of the most well orchestrated disinfo agent.
Thanks to Willy, the inconsistencies of Jones has been highlighted. But even under this light it is hard to come down definitely with a position that Jones is indeed disinfo. You have to digest all the information and somehow tease out the signal. I have to say I am weary but I am not fully convinced of one position or the other. I need more data to work with.
What do I need, perhaps more info on whether nano thermite can indeed be a high explosive or not. Perhaps more info on the impossibility of paint thin layers to demolish a thick steel column.
Thinking about it, yes a steel column cannot be destroyed by a layer of thermite if its melting properties is used. Thermite should be applied in vulnerable points on a structure. You want to concentrate it so that it's ability to melt key support is maximized.
If it is used as a high explosive, I wouldn't really know, but I still expect that high explosive nano thermite, if there was such a thing would still be most effective when used in a concentrated manner, not as paint, to demolish a building. There is no reason to destroy a steel column over its whole length, you only want to cut it just enough to let the structure buckle.
The only large surface areas that may need to be shattered is the floor system. I don't see the need to do it, but pictures of WTC do not show the flooring intact, the floors seemed to have been thoroughly destroyed, leaving no pancake like stack of floors which I would expect if only the columns were cut.
this is complete nonsense
see http://www.seaspension.com/military/index.php/about-seaspension
for "Greg Roberts" who worked for L-3
so I guess that distraction didn't work, huh?
You came to my site and suggested this was the "Greg" Roberts I was talking about. I showed you he wasn't... in fact this one isn't the FIRST "Greg Roberts" that pops up when you Google "Greg Roberts L-3 Communications"...
so I wonder how hard you had to dig to find this one...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Answer to Scott Creightons comments / claims
[Originally I wanted to post the comment at http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/too-little-too-late-darcy-wea...
but it was not possible/allowed ]
For a photograph of "Gregory B. Roberts, VP and President Communications Systems East" see slide # 3 ["L-3 Leadership team"] here: www.allianceforbiz.com/events/ppt/6_3_104.ppt
For a picture/video of Gregg Roberts see, for example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nKOwgd_dT4
Having both a picture of Greg Roberts, L-3 communications, and of Gregg Roberts, AE, you might play "spot the differences". I expect you might be able to notice that there is no way that Gregg Roberts from AE is the same person like Greg Roberts, formerly L-3 communications.
Quote (by Scott Creighton): "I simply ASKED Roberts if he was related to the “Greg” Roberts from L-3 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS EAST"
No. You did "ask" in your response to Gregg Robert's comment. But your other statements were not 'just asking'. Above you write:
"For those of you who are interested, try looking up L-3 Communication Systems East: “Greg” Roberts: etc. This is not just a question, likewise is the longer piece from you http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/comment/reply/2857/21919 not 'just asking'.
Someone who is serious about 9/11 truth should not make the kind of unsupported suggestions your posts imply. The very fact that you just took the similarity of the two names as basis to suggest that Gregg Roberts was part of the military industrial complex raises red flags about your intentions.
You write that one should look up for "L-3 Electronics Toronto and Darcy Wearing Toronto". I done so. There are only 4 hits on Google http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&client=firefox-a&hs=w2V&rls=org.mozill... (this site here, the link to your other piece and two links in relation to AE.
So to what you are referring? However, your doings are making sense for me from your point of view: on all readers who do not have the time to look it up by themselves the poison you spread might have an effect.
Quote (by Scott Creigthon): "here is my question… if A. Dreger says there is Mg in the iron rich spheres, how does that mean thermite created them? Thermite does NOT produce Mg as a by product does it?"
Answer:
(1) one uses commonly Mg-matches or Mg ribbon to start the reaction of [normal particle sized] Al/Fe thermite
(2) Mg can be used instead of Al as a fuel in thermite mixtures
The question if Mg can have a source in thermite is btw irrelevant regarding the point I did make, namely that your claim (i.e. that the spheres would be only steel from the trusses) cannot be right because of the different chemical composition of the WTC truss steel on one hand and of the iron rich spheres on the other hand.
USGS is the the most "official" dust study one can find, the [very valuable] RJLee report is a confidential report, prepared for Deutsche Bank. (If you encounter the next time a link that does not work just copy the ULR and paste it in the address bar, it works for example well with the USGS link).
Regarding steel used for trusses see the tables on [pdf-] pages 91, 92 and 176 in NISTNCSTAR 1-3D [you linked already to a screen shot of the table which is on page 92]. There is not only a complete lack of any Mg in these steels, but there is also a lack of many of the added alloys, which are in the steel, in the spheres. A 572 steel contains more vanadium (but still not any Mg). The spheres do not match the composition of any of these steels. (I am wondering if you might confuse manganese (Mn) and magnesium (Mg). Mn is a common alloy in steel, Mg is not.
Quote (by Scott Creighton): "A. Dreger then goes on to try and promote the “C-4? crap […] again, by pushing “C-4? they are still trying to push the military side of the theory, just like “nanothermite” does… C-4 is used by the military and not by controlled demolition experts […]"
Oh, I was not aware that "9/11 was in inside job" has to be translated into a mere "9/11 was a controlled-demolition-industries job". Why wanted the controlled demolition industry wage war against Asian countries, what was their gain with the Patriot Act etc.? But if 9/11 was in fact an inside job military circles involved (think of some people from the Navy for example) might have delivered explosives commonly used by the military to those controlled demolition industry experts who helped them doing the job.
Quote (by. Scott Creighton): "C-4 is a clumsey tool whereas RDX linear shaped charges are more powerful and cleaner, det cord is certainly more controlable and the pure PETN is more powerful."
I might not have your expertise about explosives but from what I read up to now C-4 would be well capable to cut through beams. Do you really think that the military would use "a clumsy tool" for their demolition jobs? (btw: C-4 is to 91 weight % RDX, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-4_%28explosive%29.) And nanothermite is capable of "enhancing" the explosive effect of high explosives (the energy of the high explosive is released during an even shorter time frame as if the high explosive would go off without nano thermite; due to this the pressure pulse can increase significantly).
Quote (by Scott Creighton): "A. Dreger tries to confuse the issue suggesting for some reason that someone could NOT have gotten PETN and det cord past sniffer dogs while I guess he is suggesting that C-4 could slide right past them."
From what I saw up to now in the web PETN and RDX based det-cord is "mandatory" knowledge for sniffer dogs, while untagged C-4 is not.
Quote (by Scott Creighton): "What A. Dreger if FAILING to tell you is that the SECURITY COMPANY ran a massive CABLE UPGRADE right up to the event of 911 in BOTH TOWERS…
and that the Security company that was doing that… was the SAME security company that was in charge of handling the sniffer dogs…."
I posted a comment regarding what I found on our website, I did not indent to write an article about sniffer dogs/security companies/WTC. So I did not "fail" to mention anything regarding any security company etc. And as you can read in my first post, I do not oppose the idea that det-cord might have been used. But they only would have been able to use it in the very last days before 9-11; a time frame that was too short to do all the preparations necessary to bring down these huge buildings. In addition, they needed to go around sniffer-dogs in any case: (1) They needed to consider that police might enter the buildings with their own sniffer dogs for some reason (someone might have called the police because of a suspicious piece of luggage for example). (2) They might not have been able to exchange all the existing employees and dogs without raising suspicions. I also doubt that det-cord alone would have been capable to cut the heavy steel columns that were in the WTC. They needed something else. Why should they not have opted for C-4 (or similar stuff)?
Quote (by Scott Creighton): " it’s not ME who was attached to Judy Wood for years… it was the creator of the “nanothermite” paper, Steven Jones… he was ALSO hooked up with Morgan Reynolds at the time"
See http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones
Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds are the persons who "hooked up / were attached", but as one can easily (just look in their article, which is from summer 2006) they were not "attached" to Jones in order to work with him but in order to target Steven Jones and "thermite". Judy Wood has been behaving like from a textbook about cointelpro btw.
The target you have is obvious: anything and anybody who is connected to the subjects "thermite/ nano thermite chips/ WTC". All the differences between you and Judy Wood / your respective websites do not conceal what you both have in common.
"Gregg" Roberts...
I think it is more than fair for AE911Truth do perform COMPLETE background checks on people when they sign up for membership. One was done on me when I signed up years ago to verify my background...
but aside from knowing that "Gregg" Roberts worked with the other disinfo king, Jim Hoffman, we know almost NOTHING about his professional career prior to that...
considering that "Gregg" Roberts has made the following claims, I think it is ABSOLUTELY legitimate to want to know his background, since everybody else's is published right there on the site...
1. (paraphrasing) That for "PR-public relations" purposes we shouldn't test for the presence of high explosive residue in the Ground Zero debris///
2. (paraphrasing) It's not important that we know EXACTLY what kind of explosives were used to bring down the Twin Towers.
To me, the combination of statements like those, his previous association with Jim Hoffman, AND the big secrecy about his previous career... all tends to send up red flags in my book.
If to you, "Annoymouse", that makes me "disinfo" then I guess you and I come at this from different perspectives.
However...
I would like to show you a little something about your NEW proof (as opposed to the OLD "proof" you submited clearing "Gregg" Roberts from L-3 Communications East)...
I contacted the company that runs the website where you found that Power Point presentation. They are a trade show production company.
Old P.P.s can be stored on their server for access by clients who attended the trade show presentation.
I have to tell you, that is an interesting find for several reasons... first of all, it's an editable P.P presentation dated 2003... actually the file is called "Microsoft Office Power Point 97 - 2003 Presentation"
that's curious, isn't it?
I found a P.P presentation from L-3 from 2006 and do you know what it is called? "2006 power point l-3"
So why is the one you are linking to, supposedly from 2008, named "2003 presentation"?
That's curious isn't it? According to the file data, the last time it was printed was 2002... does that seem a bit odd?
Consider this... what if... just "what if".. someone from L-3 opened that Power Point presentation and changed someone's name to "Gregory B. Roberts" and changed the title of the presentation to show "2008" rather than "2003" then re-uploaded it to the tradeshow company website?
Hell, I changed ALL of their names to "Gregory B. Roberts" and if I had worked for L-3, you would think their entire upper management team had the same name...
http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/l3-team-modified.jpg
fact is, what you showed me, is an editable reference with a file name that makes it appear as if the thing isn't from 2008, but rather from 2003...
Now, as I have ALWAYS said... it is possible that "Gregg" Roberts isn't the same as the actual "Greg" Roberts that I am asking about... it's also possible they are in fact related...
but the point here is, since AE911Truth makes a point to research everyone who signs up and then puts that information out there for us all to see, WHY IS IT that "Gregg" Roberts' history is such a mystery?
why is it that you keep insinuating that I am some kind of disinfo agent for simply asking that question? Why is it that you keep trying to associate me with Judy Wood when Steven Jones actually worked with her and then promoted her "earthquake weapons theory' at Richard Gages' press conference?
These are all valid questions that could be answered very easily by "Gregg" himself by simply giving us an idea of his professional background, like every other memeber of AE911Truth has already done.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
ok, one more time...
the statements you make here are rather silly...
"(1) They needed to consider that police might enter the buildings with their own sniffer dogs for some reason (someone might have called the police because of a suspicious piece of luggage for example). (2) They might not have been able to exchange all the existing employees and dogs without raising suspicions. I also doubt that det-cord alone would have been capable to cut the heavy steel columns that were in the WTC. They needed something else. Why should they not have opted for C-4 (or similar stuff)?"
my sillier responses:
(1) who knows what they had to consider. 200 electrician running new "cable" certainly bespeaks a hell of a lot more for the det cord theory than it does Jim Hoffman's "1.8 million ceiling tile bombs"... but in the end, we don't know what they considered or not. All I know is the security company in question was in charge of the cable upgrade and the dogs... go figure the rest.
(2) once again... I have repeatedly stated that the det cord would have been used to demo the floor systems (as det cord is commonly used in explosive demolitions) and RDX linear shaped charges (as they are commonly used in the industry) would have been used as "cutter" charges to demo the columns...
PETN and RDX... the two most commonly used high explosives in the demolition industry.
we need to run tests for the residues of these materials on that dust that Jones has and Roberts has access too...
is that so hard to understand? Or do you need to obfuscate some more?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
and one more thing about not being "allowed" to post...
you make this statement...
"[Originally I wanted to post the comment at http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/too-little-too-late-darcy-wea...
but it was not possible/allowed ]"
nobody has recently been denied any posting on my site... I don't moderate comments...
however...
I did ban Darcy Wearing from posting on my site as well as Chris Sarns..
Chris Sarns I banned because he was sounding just like "keenan" here... he kept making JREFer insinuations and kept suggesting I was a paid shill. That got him in trouble on this site, and I took as much of it as I could on my own before I just got tired of it.
Darcy Wearing because he was simply slinging insults and accusations and continually regurgitating "Gregg" Roberts talking points like finding the exact method that brought down the towers was... "irrelevant"...
Now, Roberts isn't banned, nor is Dwain Deets (he and I just chatted yesterday) or his friend, A. Dreger...
I certainly don't ban people for disagreeing with me, I ban them when they display pointless, trollish, behavior.
I warned Roberts he might get banned if he continued to insult the other readers of my site.
(by the way, someone who knows him told me he was an "ass" and his comment certainly reflected that to me at least and the rest of the readers at my site. so I don't even ban people for being an "ass")
Now, that said, unless "Annoymouse" here is either Darcy Wearing or "Chris Sarns" he in fact was not unable to post this comment on my site.
However, if "Annoymouse" is Darcy Wearing, don't you think that should be how you sign your comments, since this whole thing is about Darcy Wearing's mistaken article (that he has now ADMITTED was mistaken, yet still hasn't fixed? posting an additional correction doesn't count... the same mistakes are on the original article and they still have Richard Gages' name attached to them)
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
I think it was "Darcy Wearing"
And I deleted a prior comment along similar lines in which he identified himself, because if people are going to identify themselves they need to have a registered (even if pseudonymous) user account.
It certainly sounded more like Darcy...
... than the other guy. I certainly think he should sign up even if under a user name. But if he is going to argue on a thread that is ABOUT something he wrote, then certainly he should reveal who he is so that the readers understand who he is.
But again.. I don't know who "Gregg" Roberts is... he may be this guy... he may not... but I think his background should be available like everyone elses on AE911Truth.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Responding to Scott Creighton's comments regarding my comment
submitted by A. Dreger
Quote by Scott Creighton: " I would like to show you a little something about your NEW proof (as opposed to the OLD "proof" you submited clearing "Gregg" Roberts from L-3 Communications East)... I contacted the company that runs the website where you found that Power Point presentation. They are a trade show production company. …" etc.
Mr. Creighton, if you do contact companies why not just contact L-3 communications directly and ask them for a picture of Greg Roberts (formerly L-3 communications), or send them a picture/video showing Gregg Roberts/AE and ask if this was the former president of L-3 communications east?
The "About" page on 911research.wtc7.net has much more information about the people involved there as the "About" page on your willyloman site. "Scott Creighton – American Everyman": Is "American Everyman" your current occupation, your profession or both? And I have no problem to find a photographs (and videos) of/with Gregg Roberts in the net. But where one can find a photograph from you btw?
And how was it if someone would claim that you are working for the military industrial complex based on that there is one person with your name on LinkedIn who works or worked for Lockheed? This is what you do in respect to Gregg Roberts, with the differences that (1) he not even has the same name as the L-3 Roberts (the Lockheed guy has the same like you), and that (2) one can find easily pictures/videos showing Gregg Roberts in the web.
It is not Gregg Roberts who has to prove that he is not Greg Roberts, formerly L-3. It is you who should come up with some kind of information more qualified as that two persons have a similar name before suggesting publicly that the two might be the same person.
Quote by Scott Creighton: "Why is it that you keep trying to associate me with Judy Wood"
There are two things. I have strongly the impression that you try hard that people turn their heads away from anything/anybody related to the subject thermite/nanothermite [Judy Wood have been trying this too]. And exactly like Judy Wood you use unfair methods. For unfair methods see for example that you write that one should look up for "L-3 Electronics Toronto and Darcy Wearing Toronto", suggesting that there was any connection. What do you find if you look up for "L-3 Electronics Toronto and Darcy Wearing Toronto"? Please explain now what one can find regarding "L-3 Electronics Toronto and Darcy Wearing Toronto" if one looks it up. I did find nothing. I can not imagine that a genuine person would write such stuff about someone who works for AE if there was no factual basis. Given that I did find nothing that would justify your suggestion I conclude that you well might be not genuine. But you are free (and I explicitly ask for this) to point now to any factual background/reason that makes it appear sound that you wrote that one should look up for "L-3 Electronics Toronto and Darcy Wearing Toronto".
Quote by Scott Creighton: "… who knows what they had to consider"
Certainly they had to consider the risk that their charges might be detected. So they must have acted in a way that the risk of detection was as small as possible. So they must have opted for using so much stuff as possible that is not mandatory knowledge for sniffer dogs.
Quote by Scott Creighton: "PETN and RDX... the two most commonly used high explosives in the demolition industry"
9/11 was not the "common" kind of CD- job. So why should they not have used C-4 or other stuff too?
Quote by Scott Creighton: "on that dust that Jones has and Roberts has access too..."
Why has it to be this dust? And there is a huge problem in your argument. You try to discredit on one hand Steven Jones, Gregg Roberts etc. If you really would believe by yourself that what you try to bring across to your readers, why would you want to use the dust they have? If I would distrust someone I would not ask this persons to do tests or to give me a share of dust they have but I would go and try to get dust straightaway from people who collected it on 9/11. (This contradiction in your argument results in one more point on my private "this person is not genuine" scale btw.)
Given that you seem to have some knowledge regarding explosives/ testing for explosives, there is something I am wondering about: Are there tests available that test for the pure RDX etc. or are there only tests available that test for taggants?
Quote by Scott Creighton: "you make this statement..."[Originally I wanted to post the comment at http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/too-little-too-late-darcy-wea...
but it was not possible/allowed ]"
You might notice that nobody posted any more comments on this page where I wanted to post it since your last post there (July 13). I did in fact try a few times to post it. Maybe you disabled any comments for this site accidentally. If I would have been able to post it where I wanted my name (A. Dreger) would have shown up. Unable to post it where I wanted I decided to post it at least here http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/comment/reply/2857/21919. One is not asked for a name there, and I did not become aware of the effect of this difference when I submitted the comment. You might add my name and copy my post [or the whole little sub- thread here] to the place where I wanted to post it. It would be the right thing to do if you was fair given that I respond to what you write there regarding my first comment.
Quote by Scott Creighton : "If to you, "Annoymouse", that makes me "disinfo" then I guess you and I come at this from different perspectives."
I use to distinguish between "disinformation" and "cointelpro" (though one might use disinformation for cointelpro means). I used the term cointelpro in my other comment.
oh that's a good idea...
"Mr. Creighton, if you do contact companies why not just contact L-3 communications directly and ask them for a picture of Greg Roberts (formerly L-3 communications)..."
I should contact L-3, a defense contractor and contractor with the National Security Agency, and ASK them if they inserted a guy into the Truth movement under a cognitive infiltration program...
is that what you are suggesting?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
it might be easy
Just contact them and ask if they can point you to some pictures of Greg Roberts, formerly president of L-3 communications east that where published in Newspapers, Journals etc., try to get hold of some sources that can be verified.
you really don't want to have to explain "Gregg" Roberts' past..
... do you? Why the hell is that?
"It is not Gregg Roberts who has to prove that he is not Greg Roberts, formerly L-3. It is you who should come up with some kind of information more qualified as that two persons have a similar name before suggesting publicly that the two might be the same person."
actually, if he is going to go around saying things like we shouldn't test for explosive residue in that dust and that "it is irrelevant" how the Trade Centers were demoed... yeah, I think he DOES need to tell us what his professional background is.
Besides, you stated earlier that you used to work with Deets and Roberts at AE911Truth, so I know you are still in contact with him...
why are you here pushing this same contrived obfuscation rather than "Gregg" himself stopping by telling people what he did for a living prior to working with JIM HOFFMAN (telling people to believe the official story of the Pentagon)?
why is that?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
I am going to try and explain this... real slow... for you...
"For unfair methods see for example that you write that one should look up for "L-3 Electronics Toronto and Darcy Wearing Toronto""
Darcy Wearing's email IP tracked back to Toronto. The article written about him on AE911Truth says he is from Toronto. There is an L-3 in Toronto... "Greg" Roberts is with L-3... get it?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Of the millions of people in Toronto about 650 work for L-3
No, I do not get it. Toronto isn’t a little village, housing L-3 employees and their family members only. There are 2,5 million inhabitants in Toronto’s municipality (and over 5 million inhabitants in Toronto’s census metropolitan area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto). L-3 has about 650 employees in Toronto (http://www.l-3com.com/es/about_us_fast_facts.htm ). One does not need to calculate probabilities to be aware of how completely pointless your argument is. I think that there is no way that any average intelligent person would bring such an argument forward, unless this person wants to plant mistrust, and wants to discredit people, and wants to make people busy with stuff that distracts them from what they want to do. The same applies to suggesting that Gregg Roberts was Greg Roberts, formerly L-3. There is no factual basis for supporting this suggestion. And, why would Gregg Roberts/AE allow to by pictured and even to be videotaped if he was Greg Roberts from L-3?
They are the ONLY ONES I know that have it right now...
obviously
"And there is a huge problem in your argument. You try to discredit on one hand Steven Jones, Gregg Roberts etc. If you really would believe by yourself that what you try to bring across to your readers, why would you want to use the dust they have?"
If you have any other sources off-hand please let me know.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
How hard did you try to get dust first-hand from New York?
What were your actual efforts up to now to get some dust from a direct, first-hand source, or from another source as Steven Jones et al. (i.e. from people you do not arguing for that one has to distrust their intentions)?
The problem in your argument is there independent from how difficult it might be for you or someone else to get dust from first-hand sources. If you would believe what you write about Steven Jones etc. it would be completely pointless for you to rely on Steven Jones etc. both for getting dust and making tests.
Yes
"Given that you seem to have some knowledge regarding explosives/ testing for explosives, there is something I am wondering about: Are there tests available that test for the pure RDX etc. or are there only tests available that test for taggants?"
Taggants are something different. They are devised so that AFTER you run tests for residual traces of high explosive usage, you can then test for the taggants in order to TRACE the manufacturer of them.
However, taggants were excluded in certain commercial grade high explosives due to "costs" or so they said prior to 9/11.
But yes, there are tests you can run, either yourself with field tests kits or Griess Reagent tests in a lab, or you can send samples off for more accurate results.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
actually I just posted a test comment there with no problem...
"You might notice that nobody posted any more comments on this page where I wanted to post it since your last post there (July 13). I did in fact try a few times to post it. Maybe you disabled any comments for this site accidentally."
and you are not banned. others are posting comments on my site as we speak... so no... that doesn't hold water.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/too-little-too-late-darcy-wea...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
still unable to post at the place I intended
I was again unable to post there. It is your site, so it might be possible for me, but not for you. I wanted to re-post this (http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2857#comment-22188), and added that the thread continues now here. As I wrote, it did not work. You are able to post there (see your "test"), so please either make a short post that the thread continues now here, or post on your site [with my name] what I wanted to post there.
Because "C-4" won't do the job...
"9/11 was not the "common" kind of CD- job. So why should they not have used C-4 or other stuff too? "
Actually, Building 7 was about as "common" as controlled demolitions come.
the Twin Towers were only different because they were disguised as something else, but in the end, they were very common in one respect... CONTROLLED demolition.
by that I mean that NO ONE is going to risk using experimental explosives on a job that will kill thousands and possible send them to prison for the rest of their lives (or get them hung)
Why don't we do this though...
why don't we stop making excuses and convoluting the issue and just agree with "Gregg" Roberts and Steven Jones when THEY SAID in their paper that we should test for explosive residues of other types of explosives?
I mean, that really is what this is all about isn't it?
I say, just like they did in their nanothermite paper, that we should test that material they have in their possession for traces of high explosive residue...
and now "Gregg" Roberts says that finding out what actually took down the towers is "irrelevant"
who do you agree with? Me or him?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
C-4 / RDX
You want to test for RDX (inter alia). C-4 is (according to Wikipedia) 91 weight% RDX. So what I suggest is not so far from what you suggest. Trigger C-4 with nano thermite should result in a much stronger pressure pulse as trigger RDX with conventional ignition/booster charges.
it's a freebe WordPress website...
" "Scott Creighton – American Everyman": Is "American Everyman" your current occupation, your profession or both?"
I have no ads and no donations link. I have run it for over three years now. I sign my name to my work and have done a great deal of research and writing on topics from 9/11 Truth, Palestinian Rights, The Sinking of the Cheonan, Globalization, Neoliberalism, anti-zionism, ect.
Years of work for absolutely nothing. Hard for you to understand isn't it?
not only have I done it for nothing, but since I sign my real name to it, it has cost me, jobs, opportunity, friends, even family members.
readers of my site can tell you my work background, schools I have gone to, hell, even the cities I have lived in.
It is all right there if you were to but read.
So why don't you tell me "Gregg's" background. Why doesn't he come here and do it himself?
Better yet, I don't give a shit about his background... he should just test that dust... that'll be good enough for me,.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
background
There might be always readers who are new to your site (me for example at the moment). It would be convenient for new readers if you would add some stuff from your CV on your "about" page. "American Everyman" is not informative (except of that one can conclude that you tries to come across as someone everybody can identify with).
With my question if "American Everyman" was your occupation etc. I wanted to outline that it is odd that you complains on one hand about Gregg Roberts [about whom one can find easily some statements about what he does/done, what he studied etc.; not to mention pics and videos showing him, which are easily to find) when, on the other hand, your own "about" page says close to nothing regarding your profession/jobs etc. (and there is no picture from you too).
It's very simple A. Dreger...
Do you agree with this statement?
"The details of how the demolitions were accomplished are largely irrelevant at this point in time." Darcy Wearing
Do you agree with this statement?
"The precise manner or mechanism of the explosive demolition of the World Trade Center is irrelevant to the fact that it was an inside job." "Gregg" Roberts
Do you agree with this statement?
"The question of precisely which explosives were used to bring down the towers is all but irrelevant." "Gregg" Roberts
Do you agree with Roberts and Wearing that that finding the exact manner by which the Twin Towers were demed is "irrelevant" to the Truth movement?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
You got it
I agree Juan.
Anyone else follow this? Care to comment?
@JPass @Gretavo I agree with
@JPass
@Gretavo
I agree with Gretavo, but not completely.
Because it's very important to catch lies or crooked facts there where they tend to see the light. Therefore it's necessary to have discussion based on facts and without personal blames, etc.
But I consider it also as very important that a discussion keeps balanced in a way that visitors will have an idea about what is at stake. In my concern that's always the fact that the official 9/11 story is not true.
The main problem of most activist groups or forums is that they're always talking to each other, and that the people they want to attract, those who are essentially needed to be taken seriously, are in fact the most neglected part of all activity. It's just about convincing great amounts of people every day. Therefore we need some of both. We need self reflection as a tool for correcting our own errors, but we should also host our new visitors, cuz we need them desperately to maintain momentum and growth.
http://twitter.com/W911
Damn hard to distinct the garbage from honest information
@JPass
It's damn hard with all those variables to distinct the garbage from honest information. Due to my own (kind of) activity on 9/11 it's unworkable to go deep in every detail, but I'm glad that others do.
It's very frustrating to see some information jeopardizing those we are willing to trust. Still, the only way to keep this 'movement' going strong, is to allow substantial discussion based on verifiable data.
Like I said before, I don't consider a guy who is selling crooked information per definition as an agent. There are many variables that can explain their behavior without defining them as completely dishonest or not intending to unmask the real crooks. But it's incredibly important to catch every dishonesty before the dishonesty catches us as a whole.
9/11 is such a big event with such enormous consequences if people en masse will see the basic lies behind it, that every messenger with high "BMI-ratings" will struggle with dilemma's. This kind of discussion will help us to keep 'the movement' straight.
Nevertheless I'm still shocked about what I read for example about connections Craig Roberts is dealing with. I hope this is double checked and placed in right perspectives! Please go on with fighting each other respectfully the substantial way and on the cutting edge! But also keep balanced and focused on new visitors. They should be able to see some outer edges through all the smoke.
W911
http://twitter.com/W911
what is Keenan's implication when he says this/
"Both RDX and thermite/thermate likely used. RDX would consume itself im the process and may leave no residue."
"and may leave no residue"?
That is not stated in this article nor is it stated by Tom Sullivan.
so where does Keenan come up with that and why?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
i missed the no residue part
i missed the no residue part
Thanks Juan
"I do not hold anyone including Sullivan and Jones above reproach. I actually think you are on to something with your suspicions that AE911 may be infiltrated already. But I give them the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong."
Richard Gage's name is signed to that article but I don't think he fully understands just how disingenuous those two slides really are.
I have written them asking that they remove those two slides and the captions that they included with them because not only are they not accurate, they are deliberately deceptive.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/major-problems-with-tom-sulli...
It is my hope that other advocates review what I (and others by now for sure) discovered with background fact-checking, and then contact AE911Truth themselves to get them to correct this series problem.
It is NOT an unpardonable sin in the world of the unofficial investigations to have made a mistake and run with it, but it BECOMES one when a group or an investigation refuses to admit those mistakes for fear of losing credibility.
This is all I am trying to do, to protect the reputation of AE911Truth and by extention, the credibility of this movement.
"I hope you two could debate this level headed, point by point because I think both of you are truthers."
I do not doubt Keenan's intentions are good... I know it is difficult to realign an internalized perception that one has hung onto for many years. My own realization about Jones nearly caused me to quit this effort. I do not wish to harp on those issues and perhaps should have left the history of the cognitive infiltration of AE911Truth out of the first article... though I felt at the time showing a history of some of the key players would make the case stronger... instead I think it alienated many who would be able to consider this one "interview" on it's own merits...
that was probably an error in judgement on my part.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
uh, it's pretty obvious that they are reading a script...
"part of a conspiratorial group that is reading off of a script written by Gregg Roberts."
go here and watch Tom Sullivan and Richard Gage "reading from a script" (starts at 1:35:30 ish in the video) it's pretty obvious
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/6786531
now the real question is WHY does a controlled demolition expert NEED to read from a script when answering questions about... controlled demolition?
(also note how Sullivan constantly tugs at his ear as scratches his neck while speaking... this is a CLICHED "tell" for someone who is lying. Why does he do that? Is he TRYING to lose credibility?
kind of odd, wouldn't you think?
But, let's just stick with the FACT that Sullivan and Gage are clearly reading the whole thing... from a script.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
A Typical Example of Scott's Dishonesy and Evasiveness
OK, Juan, I'll walk you through the comment that Scott posted above and show you how it is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
He begins by quoting my statement of his obviously ridiculous claim that everyone who doesn't line up to suport Scott's pet PETN det chord theory, including me, are all part of what he claims is a script written by Gregg Robberts:
I said:
"part of a conspiratorial group that is reading off of a script written by Gregg Roberts."
I was refering to a claim he made throughout his diatribe against Sullivan, et. al., http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/11222/. Actually, in his diatribe, titled: The Poorly Scripted Cognitive Infiltration of AE911Truth and Tom Sullivan’s Lies of Omission he starts out making the claim that AE911Truth has been infiltrated by government agents from a White House initiative called "Cognitive Infiltration of Eextremist Groups", hence the title of his diatribe. Later on, in his long diatribe, he morphs into claiming that the script that everybody is following, including me, is written by Gregg Robberts.
So, how does Scott respond to my restatement of his obviously ridiculouse claim? He attempts to base it on the following:
go here and watch Tom Sullivan and Richard Gage "reading from a script" (starts at 1:35:30 ish in the video) it's pretty obvious
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/6786531
Did you see what just happened? Scott's "evidence" is that during a 2 and a half hour presentation filmed last May, both Richard Gage and Tom Sullivan were reading from a script or teleprompter, which is a completely different meaning of the concept of "following a script" compared to his original claim.
Now, Scott is obviously not so stupid and naive that he doesn't understand that it is standard and expected for anybody giving a lengthy public presentation to write up a script ahead of time to read from it during the presentation. That only leaves one other possibility: Scott attempted to deceptively switch the argument from "everyone is working off a script by Gregg Roberts and AE911Truth has been infiltrated by secret agents" to "Richard Gage and Tom Sullivan read from a prepared script during their 2 and a half hour presentation last May" in order to make it appear that he is providing "evidence" for his claim.
He then asks the ridiculous question, "now the real question is WHY does a controlled demolition expert NEED to read from a script when answering questions about... controlled demolition?"
Then he accuses Tom Sullivan of being a liar in the presentation based solely upon Sullivan having scratched his neck and touching his ear:
"(also note how Sullivan constantly tugs at his ear as scratches his neck while speaking... this is a CLICHED "tell" for someone who is lying. Why does he do that? Is he TRYING to lose credibility?"
Again, is Scott so stuipd and naive to not understand that people do these same gestures for other reasons beside lying, such as being nervous speaking in front such a large group of people, for example? Highly unlikely. Rather, this is just another example of Scott's frequent use of baseless accusations against people using flimsy or absurd "evidence".
And Scott concludes by deceptively conflating the 2 different "script" meanings again:
"But, let's just stick with the FACT that Sullivan and Gage are clearly reading the whole thing... from a script."
So, Juan, this is just a small lesson in Scott's JREF style tactic of wasting people's time. In fact, it's really hard to find a single writing or blog comment by Scott that doesn't contain any manipulative or dishonest tactics, and if I had limitless time and nothing else to do, I could pick apart all his other comments/articles and reveal the same type uf manipulative nonsense. I could walk you through his ridiculous diatribe against AE911Truth and illustrate probably dozens of these JREF tricks that he uses, but I won't because:
1) I'm not interested in wasting any more time on this Scott shill because it just goes on forever and I have much better things to do with my time.
2) You should try picking apart Scott's rantings yourself and see what you can learn from applying these same critical analytical techniques, so that you can practice doing it yourself.
Personally, I'm done wasting my time on this crap. It never changes with Scott, just the same type of JREF tactics over and over again. I hope you can understand now why I will be ignoring him from now on.
While I am sure that Juan appreciates you telling him...
... how to spot a "JREF shill" after all these years of his own personal experience in the Truth movement, I am still waiting for a direct answer (and try to avoid ad hominem attacks and more examples of strawmen arguements if you don't mind) to my question:
How did you come to this conclusion from the quote you listed in your very first comment?
"That paragraph says it all. Did you read this, Willylomen? No det chord required. Both RDX and thermite/thermate likely used. RDX would consume itself im the process and may leave no residue."
everyone can go up there and read "that paragraph" that "says it all"... for themselves OR I can put it up right here at the end of this comment.
Either way, what is funny is that "that paragraph" that "says it all"... doesn't say that AT ALL
It DOES NOT say that det cord is not required with these systems...
It DOES NOT say that RDX will "consume itself" to the point where it "may leave no residue"
Doesn't say ANY of that.
So, where do you come up with that conclusion?
In fact, when you lookup the HiEx system that is pictured in the article, its use for mining demolition which is less complicated than controlled demolition and even the website doesn't make the claim that det cord is not needed.
Also, when you look up the 1984 patent they mention, the one they display in the interview and in the article, that turns out to be for a "thermite igniter/heater" and THAT ALSO has nothing to do with controlled demolition.
Now, these are the question I put to you which you have not answered.
You have done a fine job in "teaching" Juan how to spot a "JREF shill" (for those of you who would like to see what kind of website a "JREF shill" runs, please check out this... http://willyloman.wordpress.com/ ...) but again, you have not answered the pressing question...
how did you come to those conclusions based on that paragraph that "says it all"?
If you can get through the name-calling and the strawman stages, I would be interested in hearing your answer...
(below is the paragraph that Keenan made reference to)
""Remote wireless detonators have been available for years. Look at any action movie -- and of course the military has them. The reason most contractors don’t use them is that they are too expensive -- but in a project with a huge budget it would be no problem. As for the casings -- everyone in the industry, including Blanchard, would know that RDX explosive cutter charges are completely consumed when they go off -- nothing is left. And in the case of Thermite cutter charges, that may also be the case. Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984."
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
I agree with Keenan that
I agree with Keenan that scratching your ears does not mean much. Come on Willy, you are a smart guy. I read your posts and pick up a lot of good points. When you go out on a limb on speculation however, you should consider that there are other possibilities explaining an event.
I am too busy with work this morning to read all posts, but again I would appeal to both of you to stand back, consider all points of view and discuss your differences without attacking each other, because I am still convinced that both of you are honest people with disagreements but no ulterior motives.
hi mouse...
All I was asking was why the guy was doing that. It made him look like he was lying, whether or not he was. You ever seen anyone else doing that in all the videos of speakers you have seen? I have haven't. I just thought it was odd.
and I am not really calling him names. In fact if you scroll down a bit, I was very decent to him in one of my earlier comments replying to Juan.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
You know... you spell "det cord" the same way Darcy Wearing..
... spells it: "det chord", with an "H" (but ONLY in the caption of the photo...not in his actual article, strange)...
See look here... this is the screenshot of the image of the mining demolition controller Darcy Wearing mistakenly identifies as a system capable of controlled demolition. Notice underneath it, in the caption, Darcy Wearing also makes the false claim that Tom Sullivan states there is no need for "det chord" with this system (just like you have done)
http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/ae911truth-lie-1.jpg
But what is curious here is the fact that Darcy spelled cord the exact same way you spelled it in this comment...
"Did you read this, Willylomen? No det chord required."
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2857#comment-21671
there is no other use of that spelling at Wiki on Det Cord... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonating_cord
and we all know that "a chord is any set of harmonically-related notes"
so what is with that? some kind of new spelling? Is it a regional thing?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Sorry if I missed it, but
Sorry if I missed it, but who is Darcy and why should it matter?
Darcy wrote the article, Juan
His is the first name listed on the article with Richard Gage and if you go to the AE911Truth website you find out that he actually held the interview with Tom Sullivan and wrote this.
now I don't know if he put the misleading caption on the image or not, but he is the one who wrote this.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Now this is funny Keenan... guess what I found?
Look at how diligently Keenan defends Steven Jones and his "nanothermite" theory from mean old willyloman... he says I
(try) "To debunk all the best physical evidence that the movement has with regard to the WTC demolitions..."
and
"Create confusion and to paint a picture for the public that there is a legitimate debate about the validity of the evidence when in reality there is none"
of course that best evidence is Steven Jones' "thermite/nanothermite/themate/super thermite"
So of course when I go after Jones for his flawed behavior and his association with Hoffman and Gregg Roberts (partnered with Hoffman) I must be a "JREF shill" as Keenan puts it.
But guess what I found?
"This has been bugging me for a while. After the split up of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth organization, which seems to have been precipitated by the falling out between Prof Steven Jones and Prof Jim Fezter, Prof Jones joined Jim Hoffman in founding a new organization called Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, with a new web site http://stj911.org that features Jim Hoffman's disinformation about the Pentagon attack, containing only cherry-picked evidence and other dishonest arguments by Hoffman, but none of the contrary evidence (Jones used to unequivocally dispute the official story of AA77 hitting the Pentagon). What's up with that?"
Who wrote that Keenan? Do you remember who wrote that? It goes on...
" What do you think of Professor Jones? Is he just an honest but naive person who just isn't able to understand the machinations of these skilled, manipulative, disinfo agents such as Hoffman? Or is there more going on with Prof. Jones than meets the eye?"
oh wait... it gets better...
not only did the author of that go on to explain Jones' history of working with the Department of Energy to undermine cold fusion, but then that author, published on this site by the way, goes on to say this...
"I know there is a large number of people in the 9/11 Truth Movement who have become convinced that Jones' thermate/thermite theory is the best thing since sliced bread and is perhaps our "best evidence". Well, I think we should always be wary when a "leader" of our movement tries to lead us down a very narrow path. It's important to keep in mind that while Jones claims to have “evidence†of “Thermate†from Ground Zero, there is no chain of custody for his alleged evidence"
Holy shit... "Well, I think we should always be wary when a "leader" of our movement tries to lead us down a very narrow path"
damn... "people in the 9/11 Truth Movement who have become convinced that Jones' thermate/thermite theory is the best thing since sliced bread..."
I like this guy... I really do...
Now THIS... THIS IS THE MONEY SHOT KEENAN... This is the GOOD STUFF...
"Stephen Jones is also ideally positioned to fill another role: the creation of an overly narrow demolition theory (relying solely on weak evidence of thermate/thermite) that can be easily debunked, while serving to spoil any inquiry into a more insidious possibility and denouncer of anyone who dared to question the veracity of that narrow demolition theory."
GODDAMN that is GOOD STUFF... articulate, logical, well-reasoned... and DAMN IT ALL, after all these years SINCE the author wrote that, IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE EVEN MORE TRUE NOW THAN EVER....
Damn I like that writer.
Do you know who that writer is?
It's you Keenan... you wrote that almost 3 years ago today on June 14th 2007
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/28
good times, huh? we having fun yet?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Hi Willy, I wrote another
Hi Willy,
I wrote another post, but I was not logged in so it wont be posted for awhile. Anyway, I like the stuff you quoted above. I also think that Jone's nanothermite, while great is open to "narrow path" dangers. This is why I most prefer David Chandler's WTC videos, they present controlled demo and everything is in the open and you don't need to rely on him for trust, you can do the video timing experiment yourself.
Your assertion however on scratching ears is a bit reaching. I have to agree with Keenan there.
I implore both of you to stand back on the attacks and let your reasoned arguments lead the way.
I still think both of you are honest truthers with no ulterior motives.
edit:
Though Keenan may have made the claim the RDX consumes itself leaving no residue, he did not state that there should be no testing for residue. Whichever way that was meant I think the dust, and all available evidence from WTC should be tested for residue. No one can assume that it was RDX or whatever, testing for explosives for all types where there is a test available should be done - to get to the truth. There is still that danger that an exotic explosive was used so the testing would end up negative (since the test misses on the particular explosive) but I am not scared of the result and no one should. The buildings went down in under 15 seconds and that is proof enough for me that they were imploded. The actual explosives used is a detail which should come out when a full scale investigation takes place.
since we are being honest here Juan
I like Chandler's work a lot. I should promote it more often than I do.
The ear thing is just odd to me. Combine that with the stilted delivery of the "reading" and the whole thing just comes off as poorly staged, and I am not really used to that from AE911Truth.
But since we are being honest here, I would like your opinion on something...
This goes to the heart of what I am trying to do here...
In this article which AE911Truth sent out on their email server, they present an image of a patent filed in 1984 which clearly they claim is of a "thermite cutter charge" when it is not. This is very disturbing. not only that but they selectively edited the abstract in the quote for their power point presentation and left out the part that says it isn't a "thermite cutter charge"
This goes to credibility, Juan. OUR credibility. You have been doing this for years, just like I have. I am signed on the AE911Truth petition... this is OUR movement and they are doing something like this?
http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/ae911truth-lie-2.jpg
Now remember, I didn't start this.
I came here to get some research on what I was writing on this article and found the second comment directly calling me out and making a claim that this article PROVES Det Cord was not used in this demolition... which is not stated anywhere by Tom Sullivan or the manufacturer of that mining device....
Keenan brought me into this and he still hasn't answered my question about how he came to those conclusions based on that paragraph. All he has done thus far in sling ad hominems and strawmen arguments around.
And you know I was nice in that one comment... well, as nice as I can be. I'm a little gruff these days. Being accused of being a "JREF SHILL" waiting for a "paycheck" kinda wears on you after a while.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
and while we are at it...
would someone please ask Keenan why he is so sure I am on the disinfo payroll simply because I am calling out Jones for being involved with the likes of Hoffman, Ashley, and Roberts when he did the exact same thing in 2007? Course we all have even more reasons now than we did then (manmade earthquakes anyone?) and it certainly seems that Keenan was right on the money back then when he was talking about "thermite/thermate" being a narrow field shutting down other avenues of investigation. (isn't that what is happening right now, by the way?)
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
phew!
Just finished reading this exchange over my morning coffee. Now I need a drink! :)
I'm pretty much with Juan here--let's all chill out and try to focus more on the facts than the personalities and what we perceive as their history of whatever.
I'll have to watch the interview AND look more closely into the patent stuff, but I appreciate the fact that willyL has given us something to think about that we can actually verify for ourselves--both the facts and implications. Not saying I agree (yet) but where's the harm in it? I'm not quite feeling the same need as Keenan to dismiss willyL's concerns out of hand...
I guess it is willy's JREF style tactics...
in which he seems to constantly resort to misrepresenting people's positions, including mine, and his consistent use of baseless and over the top rhetoric that has made my BS detector go off and prevents me from taking him seriously anymore. Even if he might occasionally have a valid point somewhere amidst his manipulative tripe, he's already lost me after the first few instances of dishonesty or JREF type behavior. I guess that's the way I am now. My patience tor this type of crap is just getting thinner and thinner.
More accusations and name calling... just answer the questions
... and you still refuse to answer one single question.
How did you derive from that paragraph you quote that 1. Sullivan said det cord was not needed... 2. that RDX would "consume itself and residual traces"... and 3. the Sullivan said that "nanothermite" was used in the demolitoin process?
You have also not explained how the original article made similar claims while posting images of things that are clearly NOT what the article claims they are as evidenced by my article (with links to the sources) and the article which STILL has this mistaken information up on AE911Truth's site (as evidenced by the screenshot)...
my article - http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/major-problems-with-tom-sulli...
AE screenshot - http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/deliberate-disinfo-being-p...
furthermore, you again have NOT addressed my question to you about how you can suggest REPEATEDLY that I am a "paid" disinfo agent or a "JREF" shill simply because I call into question Steven Jones' association with proven controlled opposition leaders like Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, and Gregg Roberts when YOU YOURSELF said the EXACT SAME THING just three years ago... (please tell the other readers here how I "misrepresented" your position on this after they go over and read it.)
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/28
In keeping with the requests of many of the other commenters here, I am not being rude. All I am offering is a reasonable discussion on the merits of the facts that I have provided in abundance...
and you just keep calling me a "JREF SHILL"
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
...why am I reminded...
...of the way the TrueFaction crowd complains about their user "Pavlovian Dogcatcher"?
Um, I give up. Why?
Um, I give up. Why?
video: det cord pulverizes 5" concrete slab
PETN det cord used in a TV show called "the blasters". They explain what det cord is, a high explosive, then they run a few lengths through a 5" concrete slab and set it off... the result is pulverized concrete dust..
where have you seen that before?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM_HyMbgZis&feature=player_embedded
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Was there any det cord found
Was there any det cord found in the rubble of the WTC? What evidence do you have that this was the manner in which the WTC was brought down?
Ok. Let me answer these one at a time...
"Was there any det cord found in the rubble of the WTC?"
Det cord is a high explosive and was used, I believe, to break up the concrete floor systems (which subsequently melted most of the HDLA steel trusses because PETN in the det cord burns at over 7,075 deg F). The fact that the floor systems were pulverized shows that if I am correct, the det cord "blew up" and therefore... there would not be any left in the rubble at Ground Zero.
Plus, a demolition company, CDI, was in charge of the clean-up so who knows what was found or not found.
"What evidence do you have that this was the manner in which the WTC was brought down?"
There is a way to prove what I am saying. Test for residual traces of high exposives in the World Trade Center debris.
This is something that I have been pushing for a long time and it has yet to be done. FEMA didn't do it and NIST didn't do it. Neither did Steven Jones for that matter.
In order to break-up those floors and create the dust plumes that we all saw billowing down the streets in Manhattan, there must have been a lot of high explosives used which means good samples of the dust would be loaded with the evidence that you speak of. It has to be, unless you think that gravity caused the pulverization of the floors, which I know is not true.
That is the way to get that evidence. It is the best and most readily available way to get that evidence... but no one seems to want to run the tests who have access to the dust.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
let's try to have a reasonable discussion about this...
One of the key issues I think has to do with the importance (or unimportance) of taggants. From wikipedia (grain of salt* at the ready, of course:)
* This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (December 2008)
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2008)
So we have an unsourced article making various claims I think are pretty relevant to this debate, from a source (wikipedia) known to be used to misrepresent the facts about 9/11. I think this goes to show that this approach (debating the type of explosives used) may be important in an investigation of whodunit, but not so helpful in showing the official storyto be false--for which I think the approach of David Chandler (for one) that relies on undeniable aspects of the destructive process, are much better tailored. Doesn't mean we can't have an interesting discussion about the process of identifying the "murder weapon" as it were, but yeah...
This is a key issue Gretavo...
"Whilst detection taggants are universally used, this is not the case with identification taggants; in particular there are arguments that there may be minimal benefit in practice to law enforcement agencies compared to the cost to industry of the taggant
This is a very important point to make and to remember... taggants were not mandated in certain industries due to what they called prohibitive cost factors. In short, it would have cost the explosive manufactures money which would have been passed on to their customers (mining, demolition, military, ect...) so they didn't force the "identification taggants" in high explosives designated for the commercial use.
So there are no taggants in det cord and probably none in the RDX linear shaped charges... but I am not as sure about that.
As you point out, looking for taggants would do us no good.
Yes, this article is unsourced but at least that aspect is accurate (they may have changed the laws a bit since 911 but at the time of 911, that was indeed the case)
But...
Taggants aren't what we need.
Look, by law, if an investigation of an event like the WTC destruction, in which property and lives are lost on a massive scale like this one, did NOT reveal the chemical traces of the use of high explosives but then later those traces ARE in fact found, then by law, there must be a new FEDERAL criminal investigation conducted.
Now, that is the law... whether or not it would be ignored after the evidence is found, who is to say.
But I know this, if we want a new criminal investigation, this is certainly a worthwhile approach... so in this case, the discovery of the evidence of the "murder weapon" is a step in the right direction... at least that is what I believe.
The way to do this without taggants is also straight forward. Test kits are available, as I have pointed out before. They are simply compact variations of what is called a Griess Reagent Test which has been around since the 1850s or so.
http://www.promega.com/tbs/tb229/tb229.pdf (PDF)
It basically detects whether or not the presence of residues from high explosives are present on a given material. Debris and pulverized concrete would literally be FULL of that residue in my opinion.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
I'm confused about your link
a Griess Reagent Test seems to be designed to look for nitrites in biological agents. If indeed there is an equivalent test for some substance that would strongly indicate the use of explosives, then what is it specifically? What trace would you be looking for? It would have to be something that a) was a residual product of whatever explosive(s) was (were) used, and b) not possibly have any other possible source to explain its presence. I'm not saying that this isn't possible, but I've yet to hear anyone mention specifics. And indeed, if tests were conducted for 2 or three types of common explosives and the results were negative, it wouldn't necessarily follow that some other explosive wasn't used, but that would surely not be how those results would be spun. It would simply and unnecessarily appear to put the onus on US to prove something that doesn't need proving. OBVIOUSLY *some* explosive was used.
but you can't do that in a court of law....
... or even the court of public opinion.
You can't say to an investigator or a State Attorney general that someone was murdered because it LOOKS like someone was murdered. You need evidence to get a warrent, you need evidence to start an investigation.
There is tons of circumstancial evidence, and political evidence (which goes to motive), and tons of evidence of the cover-up, but what we lack is the physical evidence like this.
here is Steven Jones at the recent AE911Truth press conference, holding more than enough evidence than we would need to run the tests.
http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/jones-holding-dust2.jpg
Here is an image of the kind of test kit we would need to run the tests.
http://store.sirchie.com/Explosives-Residue-Test-Kit-P843C523.aspx
it really is that easy.
If it comes up negative (which it won't. if it were going to be negative, FEMA and NIST would have already run it) then you go on to the next part of the scientific investigation... that's how it works.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
our problem is not legalistic
it's political. and that means that the solution is also political. no DA or court is going to respond properly to such a complaint at this time regardless of how we prove that a murder was committed. the only thing that will change anything is widespread public awareness and that means educating the public for as long as it takes--through street outreach, through friends and family, through activist organizations, through websites, etc.
this is the Truth movement...
for years people like you and I have been searching for the Truth about how these buildings were brought down. Hard, physical evidence.
We are so close now to a major development, Jones has the dust, and the test kit is readily available.
I have shown how the material could have been used, and we know that hundreds of "electricians" were working on a rewiring project before 911.
So close... and now what? We don't need evidence, we need politics?
The more hard evidence we find, the more pieces to the puzzle we have, the easier it will be to get media attention and the easier it will be to bring more onto our side.
You wanna talk about rekindling the Truth fire, prove there were massive amounts of high explosive residues in that dust and see what happens. Then take that evidence back to NIST and see if they want to adjust their final conclusion before they are charged as assessories after the fact to 2,790+ acts of premeditated murder...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
we already have that..
"prove there were massive amounts of high explosive residues in that dust"
Steve Jones and Niels Harrit say they have proved it, and you claim they haven't. No matter what we say we have proved, the authorities will do nothing until they realize that continuing to do nothing is untenable. Right now doing something about any of this is what they see as untenable, because a) the media won't cover the issue fairly and b) the public won't realize that the media isn't covering the issue fairly. Not saying it isn't worth performing any and all possible tests to figure out what's in that dust, but it isn't the panacea you're making it out to be. :-D
actually you don't
Jones said in the paper that they can't tell if it is a high or low explosive.
He stated many times later that what they found may be nothing more than a thermite match.
The other study done by his hand-picked scientist came to the same conclusion... that they couldn't tell from the material they had if it was a high explosive or not.
And the whole thing rests on a demolition plan which consisted of "painting" a thin layer of this stuff on beams and walls?
... and attaching the 1000s of wireless triggers to that "painted wall" HOW?
THAT is the official 911 Truth demolition theory, brought to you by a guy who refuses to test for high explosive residue and another guy who started off telling Jim Hoffman what to do?
no thanks. my search for Truth is a little more discerning than that.
I'll keep digging before I promote that theory if you don't mind. Hell, that story makes 1.8 million ceiling tile bombs sound plausible (which I guess is the whole point, ain't it?).
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
and tell me...
...what would a thermite match or a low explosive be doing in the twin towers debris? the point is that something very suspicious was found in the dust and no one seems to care. whatever you think might be found would have the same problem: no one will care. why will no one care? because they are under the spell of the big lie. how do we get them out of it? one at a time. yeah, it's the hard way. but also the only way.
Why do you think they needed...
... to mislead the Truth movement for so long... to lead them down that narrow road like Keenan talked about in 2007 when Jones first hooked up with Hoffman? that tells me THEY think otherwise about the importance of this research.
Now we have Hoffman's handler, Roberts, doing the same thing over at AE911Truth?
That doesn't concern you? That doesn't tell you something?
We used to get people involved by showing them the hard evidence of what was and was not at the Pentagon and Building 7's collapse...
Hoffman and Roberts and company worked diligently to "teach" the Truth movement to abandon some of our strongest evidence...
and then Jones teamed up with them and they have been leading us down that narrow alley ever since.
And now what do you have? 1000s of wireless detonators attached to the explosive paint on the walls of the Twin Towers?
you are missing the point... people don't seem to care because the story we are offering them, isn't logical, it isn't even what we claim it is.
That's why people have dropped out of the movement and given up... that's why the average Joe thinks were are crazy.
"[W]e suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity"
the beneficial cognitive diversity is having us run around and try to convince people that someone planned a controlled demolition around "explosive paint".
talk about the "spell of the big lie"
you get them "out of it" through hard scientific fact, the very thing Jones, Hoffman, and Roberts have been steering us away from since day one.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Baloney.
"people don't seem to care because the story we are offering them, isn't logical"
Logic hardly factors into it. People are more than happy to cling to an illogical story -- there's no reason to think they're refusing OUR story based on its supposed lack of logic.
let's see...
"red-grey" chips that may or may not be high or low explosives or even may be "electric matches"... which were "painted" on beams and walls or sprayed in the ceiling and "thermite cutter charges" that are actually drawings of thermite igniters for propulsion systems...
have I pretty much got that down? Oh yeah, the editor of the journal where the paper that all this is based on quit because she claimed it wasn't science and that it was published for "political reasons"
published, peer reviewed, and paid for by a university where 3 of the authors worked (and still work) and that university had deep ties to Bush and Cheney.
uh, yeah... logic does count.
But you are correct, some people are more than willing to cling to an illogical story no matter what the cost. Jim Hoffman and the LIHOPers are proof of that. Now, if we can just get the rest of the movement to look in a mirror every now and again...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
I'm skeptical of thermite
I've always had a hard time with the thermite focus because the dust and steel samples have no documented chain of custody. Can you refresh my memory on exactly how, when and where Jones got his dust and steel samples?
Thanks,
JPass
testing for high explosives
So do you have access to clean samples? And what is the price tag to actually pay for someone to do these tests for high explosives?
I found this interesting:
9/11 Truth Red Herring: Neoliberal BYU Has Financed, Staffed, and Peer-Reviewed Prof. Jones’ Flawed Thermite Distraction Since Day One
I found this quote there which you attribute to an e-mail from Greg Roberts:
Can you share the rest of the e-mail? He starts with 'hoever' which leaves me wondering if I'm missing some context. If he is suggesting we not do the tests simply because they could come back negative...well that's f0#)*ed up.
Two part answer Jpass
1. I do not at this time have access to clean samples of Ground Zero dust but there is more out there to be had. An example of that is someone gave Gage a sample at his press conference 2 months ago. He in turn handed it over to Steven Jones who then held it up during his chat (before talking about eathquake weapons) and made some statement like "people keep giving me this stuff".
As far a the cost is concerned, the cheapest route is about $250 for a residual test kit used by police forensic teams all across the country. That could get us a preliminary test which would be admissible in court, but I think would certainly reinvigerate the Truth Movement and perhaps we could then collect enough cash to send the samples out to forensic labs for more detailed evaluations.
2. I still have the email but it is on an old hard-drive that I have hooked up to a Rocketfish external reader. The problem is, I have a new version of Microsoft Office on this new computer but that didn't come with Microsoft Outlook,so I can't open that application on the old drive.
In the first article in which I mentioned that quote, I posted the entire email, I will look and see where it is. If anyone knows how I can access those emails on the older drive without having Outlook Express, let me know.
What he was saying was exactly what said... he didn't want to check for explosives residues because a negative result would be bad PR for the movement. In the previous paragraph he had said that I made a good argument for testing and he acknowledged that he and Jones had made the same suggestion in their "nanothermite" paper. But he said he was going to recomend to the others (whom ever that is) that these tests not be run. And they still haven't since...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
copy your mail files
try this, copy your mail files from hard drive, paste the files in a computer with outlook, be careful not to overwrite existing mail files on 2nd computer
http://email.about.com/od/outlooktips/qt/Back_Up_or_Copy_Outlook_Data.ht...
I think the problem here.
I think the problem here is that WillyLoman has updated to Windows Vista or something that doesn't have Outlook or Outlook Express.
I think your route would be to find the e-mail folder for Outlook / Outlook Express and put it on a disk. Then find a computer that has outlook or outlook express, which ever you use and set it up that way.
Don't do it on my behalf. I believe you when you say "What he was saying was exactly what said...".
On another note...$250 bucks that's it? Jeez. Let me know if you get clean samples and I'll pay for it. I'm not sure about samples that someone just gave Jones or whatever. That seems a little un-scientific.
Have you ever looked into the possibility of getting samples from the government or something like that? Either way I could raise $250 in a day or two.
money isn't the object here...
the keys are 1) obtaining genuine samples and 2) being able to trust that the analysis and reporting will be accurate and honest. Seems to me you wouldn't want to let the tester know you are having 9/11 dust tested, for obvious reasons. also, knowing what the results mean and don't mean. They could rule out any number of things but that doesn't mean there isn't something there that they didn't/couldn't test for.
gretavo is partly correct, money isn't this issue, or at least..
... not "the" issue.
1. access to the sample, a "respectable" clean sample is key. Take for instance that woman who gave Jones his first sample. She sells 9/11 "art" now on a couple of websites and does speaking engagements about 911. That's all well and good... but the problems is, right on her website, she has a photo of a piece of "art" she did with the actual Ground Zero dust she had saved in a glass vase with some kind of TWIG sticking out of it.
Anything coming from her samples, either before or after taking that picture, is now contaminated... not by actual scientific fact, but by association in a court of law.
Treating that important material in such a calous way, has now tained everything that comes from her samples... all a defense attorney (or the MSM) would have to do to discredit any study rising from one of her samples is show that picture and ask "are we supposed to believe THIS person handled that sample in a professional manner?"
So we need a sample that has a 1 step chain of possession, from someone that doesn't use the samples as a prop for her art, or at least someone who has treated the material in a respectful way according to the courts. (I don't care what she did with it, it's her stuff... but it just won't hold up in a court of law)
2. Identification. There are key markers to identifying Ground Zero Dust as established by the USGS and the RJ Lee studies... the key one is the iron-rich spheres. These MUST be identified PRIOR to testing. Now that test alone could cost a lot... but there may be a way around that...
3. Travel. Who to trust... how do you gather the samples and how do you test them in an envirnment that you KNOW will hold up to the scrutiny of a potential court proceeding and the MSM court of public opinion?
You can't leave it to one person. You run the tests live on camera (at LEAST being video taped). And...
you run the tests in an acedemic envirnment with forensic students in a legitimate lab. Each sample to be tested in enclosed (clear plastic) testing area so that one sample does not contaminate another.
That is why I innicially put up a link to the Griess Reagent test when Gretavo asked about this. That test can be run in any acedemic envirnment WITHOUT EVEN THE $250 for the test kit.
Now I hope that answers some questions. There are still sources out there with clean samples. We have to find a way to get the word out there, but we also have to EXPECT to run into a lot of resistance from people OUTSIDE and INSIDE the movement, for various reasons.
and this brings me to my last major issue with this...
4. They'll kill you. NIST won't run it, the 911 Commission won't run it, FEMA won't run it, RJ Lee won't run it, Harrit et al won't run it...
nobody will run these tests YET each and everyone of them recognized that they SHOULD have been run.
If we start a campaign to do this, we had better know exactly what we are in for.
If a "billion dollars is wrath of God money"... what is the overall value of the Global War on Terror? How much is spent PER DAY in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yeman, Pakistan, Somalia, the Department of Homeland Security, all the psyops companies, the merc contractors, the central banks getting their hooks in all the above mentioned countries...
if a billion dollars is "wrath of God" money... what are we talking about here?
they shot Pat Tillman in the back of the head because he was simply going to talk to Chomsky and hurt their PR for the Afghanistan occupation. A millionare soldier got WHACKED because he threatened their POLL NUMBERS for God's sake... what do you think they will do when peons like us start moving to run the tests no one else would run?
that's "the" issue. that's reality.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
dude...
"they shot Pat Tillman in the back of the head because he was simply going to talk to Chomsky and hurt their PR for the Afghanistan occupation"
Did they, now. How do you know this is why he was shot? From what I've read he was considered a bit of a jerk by those with whom he served--sure it couldn't have been a pissed off grunt who knew he could get away with it?
And you are also suggesting that the same "they" who rigged the towers for demolition are the "they" who "whacked a millionaire soldier." when you really have no way of knowing that's the case. As far as I know, Larry Silverstein was not in Afghanistan at the time of Tillman's shooting.
So not only are you suggesting we take it upon ourselves to do something that we really need not do to prove foul play, you're suggesting we could be killed for doing it.
You're starting to quack like a duck again, Willy...
you think this only goes as far as Larry Silverstein?
It's amazing how Lucky Larry got those fighters to go in the wrong directions and how he organized joint military operations with Canada on 9/11...
Its also amazing how he arranged for no alarm to sound in the Pentagon as something was about to hit the reinforced side of the building..
think he was also flying the planes by remote...
... or did someone in the MILITARY have a little something to do with this "new Pearl Harbor type event"?
"as far as I know", Larry Silverstein didn't act alone
and uh, YEAh... exposing this could be very dangerous.
"You're starting to quack like a duck again, Willy" are we back to ad hominems again?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Silverstein was clearly
Silverstein was clearly involved in 9/11. As a point of fact Israel has infiltrated many US agencies and has been caught red handed spying numerous times. Dov Zakheim is a prime suspect of 9/11 from his perch at the Pentagon. That said, Tillman was not killed by accident, the placement of the shots, the short distance from which he was shot, the systematic cover-up of it all etc. Point is-they may not be DIRECTLY related but they both served similar interests. Lets not forget who the Iraq war has really helped-Israel. You both make good points but ignore the larger picture. The tail wags the dog and to blame the American political elites is to blame the Israeli political elites. 9/11 was an Israeli/American job and Tillman may have been one or the other or both as well.
here's some video fakery...
Having fun yet
wasting time going round-and-round with willy? I hate to say I told you so, but...
i'm going to laugh...
...all the way to an assassinated early grave if I have to.
"What is the point of finding out how they did it?"
"What is the point of finding out how they did it?"
are you kidding?
(psst... I didn't say I wouldn't do it. in fact, I write a webite detailing HOW to do it and WHY we should do it... and I sign my REAL NAME to it, "gretavo"...
Jpass asked about "issues" relating to this course of investigation... so I explained them to him as honestly as I could.
funny you should continue to focus on this one thing... as I recall, there were 4 key issues that I addresses, with a rather reasonable and achievable solution to them.)
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Willy, if you will assert
Willy, if you will assert something like Tillman shot coz of Chomsky, it would be better if you can at least add a link that elaborates on this story.
Truthfully i don't know either way and for now i consider this just your opinion/theory. I hold it that it is possible that the Bush admin could have been part of an assassination of Pat Tilman, but absent of supporting info, this case could just as well have been a grudge or whatever other motivation there is for murder/homicide.
fair enough
There is a new documentary coming out about the Pat Tillman murder (I suppose it is a murder... even if what gretavo says is correct "Pat was a jerk" or whatever... it's still a murder that was covered up.)
"Army investigators were denied access to investigate the Pat Tillman death as a possible deliberate fragging... the Army lawyers in email trafic were congratulating themselves on keeping this from becoming a criminal investigation. Do you think this case is still wide open?
Westley Clark: absolutely."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecTUO3IKebY
in this interview from 2007, they go on to state that they may be coming at the investigation from the "wrong direction". That instead of just looking at the fact that Tillman's friendly fire death was covered up for propagnada's sake, that he may have actually BEEN KILLED for that very reason in the first place.
and it is his mother who is also very much behind that notion.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
thanks!
thanks! here is an article that describes the planned chomsky meeting, but still speculation and no proof to actual motive
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/Niman.JanFeb06.html
Now here is the good news...
False Flag events and fraudulent investigations can and are being exposed, even to this day, by diligent "net citizens" who are committed to the factual integrity of their own unofficial investigations.
case in point: PCC-772 Cheonan
"PCC-772 Cheonan: South Korean Government Admits the Deception (and then Lies About It)"
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/pcc-772-cheonan-south-korean-...
"In a blow to conclusions that are already under attack from leftwing politicians and activists, a team of experts that investigated the sinking of the Navy corvette Cheonan have admitted showing a diagram of the wrong North Korean torpedo when they presented their findings at a press conference on May 20." from Korean media on June 30, 2010
"Like in the case of 9/11, careful fact checking and examination of the evidence by netizens has shown the South Korean government’s case for the involvement of North Korea in the sinking of the Cheonan to be unsustainable. Netizens are more and more able to act as watchdogs. But they need teeth." Ohmy News International, Korea… June 8, 2010
hundreds of thousands of bloggers, journalists, activists, and eventually politicians in South Korea, turned Hilary Clinton's "objective investigation" upside down and exposed it for the fraud that it is.
And it was all started by a handful of "conspiracy theorist" bloggers and one brave JIG investigator who dared denounce the "official story"
so it can be done and it is being done.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
maybe easier way...
http://www.snapfiles.com/get/dbxviewer.html
This program says it can read the emails directly from the .dbx files that should be on your external drive containing your outlook messages... good luck!
Uh, no
Logic is just one part of the picture when it comes to triggering a willingness to examine other explanations -- and a small part in many cases. Triggering that willingness to even EXAMINE counter narratives is a huge part of our job, and hammering people over the head with thermite vs. RDX arguments is not going to do it.
People complain that no investigative authority...
... will take up our cause and start a new investigation into the events of 911... as we offer those investigators... "explosive paint" theory...
The "convincing the masses" stratigy is not only failing, it is pointless to start with.
"The Masses" know that the banks have hijacked this country and nothing happens.
"The Masses" know that the Iraq occupation is about oil and greed and "the New Middle East" and nothing happens.
Hell, "The Masses" know that the South Carolina election was hacked by electronic voting machines to ensure a globalist senator keeps his seat... and nothing happens.
If you are interested in getting to the Truth of what happened, then YES it is very important to put aside the ridiculous "explosive paint" dogma and ACTUALLY SEARCH for the correct process used to drop those towers and building 7.
And "hammering people over the head" matters a great deal if one story is the rational, believable truth and the other is a ridiculously cartoonish fabrication (from a guy hooked up with Jim Hoffman and crew) DESIGNED to drive people away from the movement.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
You will know them by their deeds
Willy,
Your comments are consistent with the lads at JREF. Attack the messenger to avoid the message. Find a mistake and go on a tear about it calling people liars. Argue details endlessly to avoid dealing with the evidence. etc.
Nano-thermite was found in the WTC dust. There is no reason to doubt Professors Harrit and Jones. Don't bother singing from the JREF hymnal, I have heard it all.
"April 2009. BYU reviewed the paper prior to publication and found it to represent sound science, and approved it for publication in the Open Chemical Physics Journal. Specifically the chair of the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy approved publication and told me personally this was sound scientific research and that he was now persuaded that explosives/pyrotechnics were involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11.
4. There were two authors from BYU listed on that paper, Dr. Farrer (as second author) and Daniel Farnsworth. Their affiliation with the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy was listed in the paper, with the approval of BYU." -- Steven Jones
The fact that BYU allowed Dr. Farrer and Daniel Farnsworth to list their association with BYU in the thermite paper is proof Steven is telling the truth. The PTB [powers that be] are very afraid of this evidence and they have launched an all out campaign to discredit Harrit et al. Your intent is irrelevant. You are singing the JREF song to the detriment of the TM. But thanks for reminding us that we are "over the target".
You are not an explosives expert nor could you possibly know how nano-thermite might be used. The military developed it and they have an unlimited budget so it is quite possible that they found a way to use it in a CD.
There is NO other explanation for the molten metal and the microscopic iron spheres. You have yet to show any evidence that PETN can produce iron micro-spheres. This is an experiment you can conduct yourself if you think it will be helpful. Put up or shut up and don't badmouth others for not doing your bidding.
AE911Truth Published their "correction" to this article...
After over two weeks of discussion with the main author of this article, I was promised a "correction" and today it was published on AE911Truth's website.
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/317-correction-and-clarificat...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
nice work willy!
I mean that. I think you were right to point out the error, and moreover I think their response was excellent. What did you think of it?
Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee
News
-
News Releases By AE911Truth
Written by Darcy Wearing and Richard Gage, AIA
Article: Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee
Posted Correction
incorrectly identified the thermite device illustrated in this article
as a "cutter charge.” But, the device as described in the patent is
only an igniter heat source only used to ignite larger charges. It does
not in and of itself have the capability of cutting structural steel.
We would like to also note that neither the authors nor the
which
interviewee, Tom Sullivan, intended to imply that this particular device
was used in the WTC destruction. We don’t know exactly what was used.
That is why we need a thorough investigation. Our intention was to note
that the technology for self consuming consolidated thermite
cases existed as far back as 1984. In our DVD 9/11: Blueprint for
Truth, we do show the 1999 patent for a thermite-based cutter
charge
is designed to eject molten copper or iron through the orifice in
“hundreds of milliseconds,” and is capable cutting through thicker
structural steel more efficiently. This thermite-based cutter charge
has distinct advantages over more traditional high explosive cutter
charges. From the patent description:
“A primary disadvantage
of explosive shaped charges is that they generate excessive noise and
debris upon detonation. This noise and debris can pose potentially
serious health and safety hazards to someone using a cutting device
which employs conventional shaped charge explosives.
Thermite-based cutting devices which employ a cutting flame produce
virtually no extended shock wave and generate relatively little over
pressure. Thermite-based cutting devices do not present the same health
and safety hazards which are attendant upon explosive shape charge
cutting devices.
So, this may provide explanation as to why the perpetrators used such
devices – if in fact they were used - in these deceptive controlled
demolitions. (We do not have much evidence to conclude that they were
used in the Twin Towers – whose debris pile was fairly extensively
photographed).
However, in the case of WTC 7, from which we have not been
provided close-up photos during the clean-up process, we do have very
interesting documentation from FEMA BPAT
Report in Appendix C, along with photos and witnesses of pools of
molten metal, which may provide such evidence. The authors describe
severe high temperature corrosion, intergranular melting, rapid
oxidation, and evaporation of the ends of steel structural members.
Remember, WTC 7 was not the extreme explosive event that the
Twin Towers were. It was an implosion, during which there are far fewer
witnesses describing hearing and feeling the explosions. So it may be
more likely a traditional demolition but using thermite incendiary
cutter charges, where as the Twin Towers may have been destroyed with
more explosive materials like C4 and the nano-thermitic composite
explosives (which have been documented in other articles).
Also, it is quite conceivable, given the 16 year span of time between
1984 and 2001, that these two technologies could have been combined
to produce a thermite based cutter charge whose casing is also made of
consolidated thermite. This must still be researched.
Posted Clarification:
We used the Hi Ex system as an example in the article of a wireless
detonation system that existed long before 9/11/01 and that was capable
of stand–off distances of 5 kilometers – eliminating the requirement for
“miles of detonation cord” from the actuating device. We had no
intention of implying that this was the actual system used by the
perpetrators at the WTC high-rises. A real investigation might reveal
such secrets.
Posted Editorial Comment:
Next to the discovery
of Nano-thermite in the WTC dust, the question of whether such
thermite-based devices were used is a side issue -- merely one possible
technology that could account for the dozens of observations of molten
iron or steel in the debris pile.
In the debate about what
brought down the World Trade Center, providing the grand
"problem-reaction" for which the War on Terror is the alleged
"solution," our position is solid on every important point. This is
underscored by our critics' noisy attention to small errors such as
this. The promoters of, and believers in, the official government
conspiracy have always ignored or misrepresented the gross features of
the three WTC towers' destruction. Those features -- the speed,
symmetry, thoroughness, completeness -- have always pointed
unequivocally to surreptitious demolition with explosives as the cause
of that destruction. The details of how the demolitions were
accomplished are largely irrelevant at this point in time, except that
al Qaeda clearly lacked the access to accomplish any variant of them.
We call, once again, on everyone of conscience to evaluate
impartially the evidence on both sides, as best we know it today, and
join our 10,000 petition signers in the call for a new, open,
subpoena-powered professional investigation, free of conflicts of
interest, that will follow the scientific method and the evidence
wherever it leads and let the chips fall where they may.
Sullivan more of a liability than an asset
Considering that there are no wireless systems like this used in controlled demolition anywhere, which Sullivan should have known if he really had any blasting experience, this rather fuzzy admission that the earlier press release was wrong is rather disingenuous.
Considering the oft-cited Seattle newspaper article about the KingDome demo, in which Sullivan describes himself as nothing more than a photographer, and CDI's statement that he was never used except as a photographer, one really has to question the skills of the fact-checkers on staff.
This sort of thing just makes the Truth Movement look ridiculous, and I predict Sullivan is going to be as big an embarrassment as some of the earlier "whistleblowers."