NIST 9/11 report EXPOSED-A former employee Speaks Out

Cheerful Spring · 08-08-2018 12:42am

King Mob wrote: »

That answers none of the problems with how utterly laughable the notion is.

He would not check with his insurance company on the day of event. It's silly to think he would.
He would not check with his insurance company at all. It's silly to think he would.
He would not admit to checking with his insurance company. It's silly to think he would.

And this is important:
He would not admit to the conspiracy on camera.
It's ridiculous that you think he would.

Again, I would take you more seriously if you were taking about space lasers.

According to people on the day he did phone the insurance company if Fox News is lying you have to talk to them about it.

Several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building

The follow-up clarification does not make sense either because even reported by FEMA there were no firefighters inside the building fighting the fire. Fact, it reported most of the firefighters had left the area by 12 noon they few that were left were fighting a fire were near WTC6

So his statements both times doesn't make any sense whatever you look at it. Even his phone call with fire commissioner is suspect because nobody has ever come forward and said they talked with Silverstein to pull the building down.

King Mob · 08-08-2018 4:06am

No, what doesn't make sense is why he would admit to being part of the conspiracy on camera.

It makes no sense. It's inherently silly and requires the world to work on cartoon logic.

Your conspiracy is a joke.

Dohnjoe · 08-08-2018 8:34am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I did not miss it I read it but has no relevance to what we are discussing.

A reporter who was at WTC 7 when it came down reporting that there was no evidence of explosives has no relevance?

In a thread about WTC 7, in a current discussion about WTC 7 being bought down by explosives

King Mob · 08-08-2018 9:19am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A reporter who was at WTC 7 when it came down reporting that there was no evidence of explosives has no relevance?

In a thread about WTC 7, in a current discussion about WTC 7 being bought down by explosives

Well he's in on it obviously.
At least until we point out how ridiculously huge the conspiracy would need to be at the point, and he'll flip again and decide that only a few people would need to be involved.

Cheerful Spring · 08-08-2018 1:19pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A reporter who was at WTC 7 when it came down reporting that there was no evidence of explosives has no relevance?

In a thread about WTC 7, in a current discussion about WTC 7 being bought down by explosives

It's highly doubtful he was anyway near this building. He probably talking about being near ground zero were you probably able to see the building fall from there.

Cheerful Spring · 08-08-2018 1:30pm

King Mob wrote: »

Well he's in on it obviously.
At least until we point out how ridiculously huge the conspiracy would need to be at the point, and he'll flip again and decide that only a few people would need to be involved.

There plenty of evidence the building was taken down. If you want to believe in NIST fantasy that one floor on the 13th somehow collapsed the entire building go ahead believe. But the research had been done NIST theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny. We now know shear studs were connected to steel beams (girders) and concrete floor slabs were the collapse event happened NIST theory is therefore invalid. Thermal expansion cannot happen like they said. Instead of thinking we are nuts, why don't you ask NIST why have they not updated and changed their model to reflect the newest information, as they are fully aware now, there were shear studs connections and whereas they left them out still? Freefall cannot occur in a building with structural resistance that just a fact. Never mind nano-thermite has been found in the dust that can not have got their naturally.

Cheerful Spring · 08-08-2018 1:37pm

King Mob wrote: »

No, what doesn't make sense is why he would admit to being part of the conspiracy on camera.

It makes no sense. It's inherently silly and requires the world to work on cartoon logic.

Your conspiracy is a joke.

Well, he did brain farted or his covering himself in case he got found out who bloody knows but it obvious his talking about bringing down the building. Even his correction later he meant pull the firefighters out doesn't even make sense there were no fire crews inside the building to pull out.

Cheerful Spring · 08-08-2018 1:52pm

Here is an interesting fiery debate between a BBC reporter and Dr Harrit Associate Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. Dr Harrit and other scientists got samples of the dust and carried out work in the lab and their conclusion they found nano-thermite.

Dohnjoe · 08-08-2018 5:20pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It's highly doubtful he was anyway near this building.

Based on?

Dohnjoe · 08-08-2018 5:33pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Harrit Associate Professor Emeritus of Chemistry

Organic chemistry. His paper was published in an open non-peer-reviewed journal.

The paper and it's "findings" are fairly well discussed here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140017

For other readers it should be pointed out that Dr Judy Wood PhD (material science) believed that the World Trade towers were "dustified" by secret energy weapons. Having a PhD doesn't exclude individuals from being "crackpots". Speaking of which Dr Neils Harrit was labeled a "crackpot", took it to court and lost the case

Cheerful Spring · 08-08-2018 6:05pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Based on?

Based on the reporting of the day. The only known reporter to be anywhere near WTC7 before its collapse was Vincent DeMentri of CBS. Remember when he interviewed that black secret service guy on 9/11 that was him.

An oddly enough on the day he talked about controlled demolition in the towers.

Cheerful Spring · 08-08-2018 6:11pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Organic chemistry. His paper was published in an open non-peer-reviewed journal.

The paper and it's "findings" are fairly well discussed here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140017

For other readers it should be pointed out that Dr Judy Wood PhD (material science) believed that the World Trade towers were "dustified" by secret energy weapons. Having a PhD doesn't exclude individuals from being "crackpots". Speaking of which Dr Neils Harrit was labeled a "crackpot", took it to court and lost the case

I don't know why you keep posting links when you obviously don't read them?

I read the other link you posted and there was a good debate about this.

Especially read Jay Howard comments his well-informed conspiracy theorist he argued his points actively and brilliantly take your time and notice what he's saying.

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/page-3

Professor Harrit lost a libel case had nothing to do with losing about what he found.

Cheerful Spring · 08-08-2018 7:23pm

This is an excellent presentation by Richard Gage it explains all the errors in the NIST study.

Even just watching for a minute or two you see how dumb NIST study is.

Cheerful Spring · 08-08-2018 8:25pm

Something just thought of and doesn't make sense when I think about it.

How did people know the 13th floor was going to come crashing down an hour before it did? You need a crystal ball to know this floor would be the cause of the collapse. There no possible way anyone could have known an hour in advance the girder would be knocked off its seat. This event is sudden. The more I think about it makes no logical sense whatsoever anyone could have predicted the building would fall unless it was planned to be brought down.

Dohnjoe · 08-08-2018 8:47pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

An oddly enough on the day he talked about controlled demolition in the towers.

In WTC 1 and WTC 2. He also talks about bio weapons, c4 explosives, calling it all speculation. No one could believe what was happening that day, so everyone was speculating. I remember it clearly

Conspiracy theorists seize on this of course

Dohnjoe · 08-08-2018 8:49pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Professor Harrit

His paper has not been peer-reviewed, it's dodgy and is considered well debunked

Dohnjoe · 08-08-2018 8:54pm

This is an excellent presentation by Richard Gage it explains all the errors in the NIST study.

For anyone reading this, Richard Gage is the man behind "AE911" - the group of truthers who think 911 was an inside job (but don't have any credible evidence of it or theory)

They are a self professed group of experts and do little else but attack the NIST report (usually by relying on heavy doses of pseudo-science)

He's since made his site subscription only and draws at least 60k+ dollars per year salary off it. Also uses it to fund "studies", like the one in Alaska that is currently long overdue producing a final conclusion on WTC 7 - and should be subject to peer-review

Cheerful Spring · 08-08-2018 9:04pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

His paper has not been peer-reviewed, it's dodgy and is considered well debunked

It has been peer reviewed it only debunked by Skeptics on forums who have got no scientific background too judge. Of course, you did not read the Metabunk thread because all these arguments on the Skeptic side were mentioned and debunked with ease by Jay Howard. These Skeptical threads are enlighting for people on the fence. When they actually debate a guy who knows his stuff they look silly.

Cheerful Spring · 08-08-2018 9:10pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

For anyone reading this, Richard Gage is the man behind "AE911" - the group of truthers who think 911 was an inside job (but don't have any credible evidence of it or theory)

They are a self professed group of experts and do little else but attack the NIST report (usually by relying on heavy doses of pseudo-science)

He's since made his site subscription only and draws at least 60k+ dollars per year salary off it. Also uses it to fund "studies", like the one in Alaska that is currently long overdue producing a final conclusion on WTC 7 - and should be subject to peer-review

Richard Gage is more credible than NIST. He showed every error they made with ease. How can you still stand by NIST when they still claim Column 79 girders (steel beams) and concrete beams have no shear studs and fasteners. This has been proven to be wrong in a court case. Never mind you criticize AE911 for crappy research but ignore it was this group who noticed free fall and NIST having received letters from this group had to change it they knew they could not keep denying it.

Cheerful Spring · 08-08-2018 9:17pm

I have to give Metabunk it due they debate well-reasoned conspiracy theorists who are knowledgeable., International Skeptics is
a clown site they are just debunkers, they only what to read their own opinions.

Cheerful Spring · 08-08-2018 9:24pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

F

He's since made his site subscription only and draws at least 60k+ dollars per year salary off it. Also uses it to fund "studies", like the one in Alaska that is currently long overdue producing a final conclusion on WTC 7 - and should be subject to peer-review

This is tired only argument Richard Gage is involved in it for the money. One acccountant in firm could be making that. This could be a full time job for him. If he was making millions of dollars you have a point but 60k dollars if his even making that in 2018 is hardly a big deal.

So you complaining they paying for a research from their own coffers, really

Dohnjoe · 08-08-2018 9:33pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It has been peer reviewed

His demolition conspiracy theory friends adding notes to it is not "peer review"

Richard Gage

Is the head of a crank movement that makes money from convincing people that there was some sort of conspiracy. But doesn't have any credible theory. Sound familiar?

As for nano-thermite

https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/

"7WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE UNIGNITED NANOTHERMITES THEY FOUND IN THE DUST SAMPLES IN THAT EXPERIMENT? Niels Harritt, Steven Jones and other 9/11 controlled demolition theorists claim to have found nanothermite particles in dust samples from the World Trade Center. They made sure the dust samples were untainted, and used advanced instruments to measure what happened when these tiny red-grey chips were heated up.

Thermites reach temperatures of around 4500° and have their own oxygen supply when they burn, so they can burn underwater. Harritt, Jones, et. al. therefore should have heated up the chips in a nitrogen or argon atmosphere to eliminate the possibility that regular hydrocarbons were burning. They also failed to take the carbon-based products out of the mix, so what we may well be seeing is some kind of carbon-based product burning in oxygen. They compared the sudden energy spike of their burning chips with the spikes of known nanothermites, and found that their chips ignited at around 150° C. lower than the known nanothermites, and the energy release was off between their chips and the nanothermites by a factor of at least two. Yet they called this a match for nanothermite!

Attempts to independently replicate this experiment have been dismal. Mark Basile, who appeared in the acknowledgments of the original study, burned the chips in air, replicating the error of the original experiment and not even measuring the energy released. A chemist named Frédéric Henry-Couannier got another dust sample from the original experimenters and wrote, “Eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed.” The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn’t find thermitic material."

and

"12WHAT ABOUT THE FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF BUILDING 7? That is the silver bullet that proves controlled demolition! NIST studied the collapse of one face of the 47-story Building 7 and found that indeed, on that one face, it collapsed “at gravitational acceleration” for eight stories over 2.25 seconds. The rest of that collapse was at considerably less than free-fall. After the internal supports collapsed, the perimeter walls were pulled inward. Every time a column snapped like a stick, it shifted its load at the speed of sound to other columns, and the collapse “gradually” accelerated over about two seconds. In phase two, the building was indeed collapsing at free-fall acceleration.

Free-fall collapse speed does not mean no resistance, it means no net resistance. Those collapsing beams still clinging to the walls functioned as levers. So there were three forces at work on Building 7 during its collapse, and the sum of these three forces varied with time: the constant downward force of gravity, the variable upward force of residual structural resistance, and variable leveraged downward forces due to connections to other parts of the building. The leveraging forces may have briefly accelerated parts of Building 7 at greater than 1G, and in fact the NIST Report shows very slightly faster than free-fall for a second or so, though that could just be the margin of error."

and on how 911 truthers argue

"What about” vs. “If… then”
The 9/11 controlled demolition theorists seem to like the “what about…” challenge. They know that even the most intelligent layperson can’t answer all their questions, and even if you can answer five “what about” questions in a row, then they’ll give you a real zinger, like this one from Richard Gage: “What about the EPA’s Erik Swartz who said they found 1,3-diphenylpropane at levels ‘that dwarfed all others. We’ve never observed it in any sampling we’ve ever done.” Unless you’ve checked, you won’t know that Gage edited out the next sentence of the Times Union article where that first appeared, which continues, “He also said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.” Gage thinks 1,3-diphenylpropane was used for the sol-gel solution for safe storage of nanothermites. The patent lists pharmacological uses such as treating complications associated with metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, diabetes, dyslipidemias, atherosclerosis, cardiovascular diseases, obesity, hypertension, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative pathologies, Alzheimers, or cancers but never mentions thermites or even plastic computer parts."

Cheerful Spring · 08-08-2018 10:39pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

His demolition conspiracy theory friends adding notes to it is not "peer review"

Is the head of a crank movement that makes money from convincing people that there was some sort of conspiracy. But doesn't have any credible theory. Sound familiar?

As for nano-thermite

https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/

"7WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE UNIGNITED NANOTHERMITES THEY FOUND IN THE DUST SAMPLES IN THAT EXPERIMENT? Niels Harritt, Steven Jones and other 9/11 controlled demolition theorists claim to have found nanothermite particles in dust samples from the World Trade Center. They made sure the dust samples were untainted, and used advanced instruments to measure what happened when these tiny red-grey chips were heated up.

Thermites reach temperatures of around 4500° and have their own oxygen supply when they burn, so they can burn underwater. Harritt, Jones, et. al. therefore should have heated up the chips in a nitrogen or argon atmosphere to eliminate the possibility that regular hydrocarbons were burning. They also failed to take the carbon-based products out of the mix, so what we may well be seeing is some kind of carbon-based product burning in oxygen. They compared the sudden energy spike of their burning chips with the spikes of known nanothermites, and found that their chips ignited at around 150° C. lower than the known nanothermites, and the energy release was off between their chips and the nanothermites by a factor of at least two. Yet they called this a match for nanothermite!

Attempts to independently replicate this experiment have been dismal. Mark Basile, who appeared in the acknowledgments of the original study, burned the chips in air, replicating the error of the original experiment and not even measuring the energy released. A chemist named Frédéric Henry-Couannier got another dust sample from the original experimenters and wrote, “Eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed.” The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn’t find thermitic material."

and

"12WHAT ABOUT THE FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF BUILDING 7? That is the silver bullet that proves controlled demolition! NIST studied the collapse of one face of the 47-story Building 7 and found that indeed, on that one face, it collapsed “at gravitational acceleration” for eight stories over 2.25 seconds. The rest of that collapse was at considerably less than free-fall. After the internal supports collapsed, the perimeter walls were pulled inward. Every time a column snapped like a stick, it shifted its load at the speed of sound to other columns, and the collapse “gradually” accelerated over about two seconds. In phase two, the building was indeed collapsing at free-fall acceleration.

Free-fall collapse speed does not mean no resistance, it means no net resistance. Those collapsing beams still clinging to the walls functioned as levers. So there were three forces at work on Building 7 during its collapse, and the sum of these three forces varied with time: the constant downward force of gravity, the variable upward force of residual structural resistance, and variable leveraged downward forces due to connections to other parts of the building. The leveraging forces may have briefly accelerated parts of Building 7 at greater than 1G, and in fact the NIST Report shows very slightly faster than free-fall for a second or so, though that could just be the margin of error."

and on how 911 truthers argue

"What about” vs. “If… then”
The 9/11 controlled demolition theorists seem to like the “what about…” challenge. They know that even the most intelligent layperson can’t answer all their questions, and even if you can answer five “what about” questions in a row, then they’ll give you a real zinger, like this one from Richard Gage: “What about the EPA’s Erik Swartz who said they found 1,3-diphenylpropane at levels ‘that dwarfed all others. We’ve never observed it in any sampling we’ve ever done.” Unless you’ve checked, you won’t know that Gage edited out the next sentence of the Times Union article where that first appeared, which continues, “He also said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.” Gage thinks 1,3-diphenylpropane was used for the sol-gel solution for safe storage of nanothermites. The patent lists pharmacological uses such as treating complications associated with metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, diabetes, dyslipidemias, atherosclerosis, cardiovascular diseases, obesity, hypertension, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative pathologies, Alzheimers, or cancers but never mentions thermites or even plastic computer parts."

This long pasted post it not your own work but let's try to answer this.

The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn’t find thermitic material."

Did they have dust samples with red and grey chips, doesn't seem like it? Harrit claims the nano-thermite had not ignited had not gone off. RJ, however, observed a high frequency of Fe Iron microspheres in the dust. This would be evidence of a thermite reaction. Nothing about this work rules out thermite as a potential cause for the Iron Microsphere seen.

They compared the sudden energy spike of their burning chips with the spikes of known nanothermites, and found that their chips ignited at around 150° C. lower than the known nanothermites, and the energy release was off between their chips and the nanothermites by a factor of at least two. Yet they called this a match for nanothermite!

I believe these not accurate findings, the chips Harrit had ignited at 430C or 806F, spiked in temperature and left as a byproduct of Iron Microspheres. I never read anything about 150C online.

Attempts to independently replicate this experiment have been dismal. Mark Basile, who appeared in the acknowledgements of the original study, burned the chips in air, replicating the error of the original experiment and not even measuring the energy released.

Well he doesn't agree with this and their statement of 150c ignited potentially is false
Video here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc

This article debunks skeptics anyhow.
Mohr claimed in 2012 that the Millette study would soon be “published in a peer-reviewed journal”, but to date this has not happened, and all we have are the “progress reports” issued by Millette in 2012. Mohr also released a video backing up the Millette study, but that video has now been taken down or made private.

Millette’s initial but unpublished findings were that the red-gray chips were “consistent” with primer paint (the WTC primer paint used on the steel girders was indeed red), and showed no evidence of being thermite or even energetic.

Millette’s failure to publish as promised has raised obvious questions about his faith in his own conclusions.

Freefall anyalsis is problematic also leave that for another day.

Dohnjoe · 09-08-2018 12:36am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Richard Gage is more credible than NIST.

He's one man and he represents a self-made group of conspiracy theorists with no substantiated theory

It's no different from a bunch of people endlessly claiming an iceberg didn't sink the Titanic using circular arguments without ever explaining how they think it sank with credible evidence. Can be dragged on forever by attacking every tiny detail and ignoring every single rebuttal, rinse repeat (as we see in this thread)

In complete contrast the NIST represents hundreds of experts and investigators who had the evidence and the consensus, backed by proper peer-review and recognised groups of architects and engineers

There is no comparison

Just because you are easily bamboozled and impressed by pseudo-science and unchallenged 1 hour 45 minute videos full of carefully manipulated and selective information (which coincidentally panders to your personal attraction to conspiracy theories) doesn't mean the wider world takes it seriously for a second

Gage just continues to make money from his whacky theories (.. with no actual theory, just a vague idea that seems to change and morph every few years)

Dohnjoe · 09-08-2018 12:59am

It's naive to pretend the Saudis didn't know of the 911 plot. Announcing it openly to the Americans would have achieved nothing, no one pays attention to failed plots. It would have made Saudi look bad at no gain to themselves. They knew that Bush, Rove and Cheney were chomping at the bit to get Saddam and go into Iraq - the Neocon doctrine was no secret, but they couldn't drag the US into war for no reason. Here was the perfect reason.

Coincidentally in a spectacular "failure" of intelligence the US didn't spot it, somehow this glaring plot wasn't picked up by the FBI or CIA - which had operatives everywhere. They both happened to know nothing about a plot that was mutually beneficial to both sides. With all the info we have now, the redacted pages, etc its beyond a stretch to entertain for one second they didn't know. When the attack happened Bush subsequently shot up in the polls and the US subsequently invaded Iraq - the Saudis immediately welcomed the US on Saudi soil to attack one of their major foes and competitors in the region. Win-win for all.

Any trace of knowledge of this at offices (conveniently located in the WTC plaza) could "go up in smoke". NORAD just "happened" to be caught with their pants down. No one spots the attack.. at all. Not only that, but the attack is a major success, nothing goes wrong. Amazing how flawlessly it went, when we can see how inept the hijackers were and how individual agents in the intelligence agencies actually knew of their existence on US soil prior to the attack.. I guess their superiors took the "hands-off" approach

It's great fun to make up stuff, fantastical conspiracies, no one can refute it and I can go around in circles defending it forever. I don't even need to waste time attacking the NIST or "proving" demolitions. All I need to do is flesh it out with all the selective details of Saudi agents, the FBI agent who spotted a "chink" in the plan, the cosy Bush-Saud relationship, the "miraculous" ease at which the hijackers carried everything out.. the usual conspiracy trick of selectively picking things that happened and gluing them into the narrative. Once it gets out on the internet, it just gains validation and life from all the non-critical-thinking people who have a penchant for conspiracy theories

Cheerful Spring · 09-08-2018 8:33pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He's one man and he represents a self-made group of conspiracy theorists with no substantiated theory

It's no different from a bunch of people endlessly claiming an iceberg didn't sink the Titanic using circular arguments without ever explaining how they think it sank with credible evidence. Can be dragged on forever by attacking every tiny detail and ignoring every single rebuttal, rinse repeat (as we see in this thread)

In complete contrast the NIST represents hundreds of experts and investigators who had the evidence and the consensus, backed by proper peer-review and recognised groups of architects and engineers

There is no comparison

Just because you are easily bamboozled and impressed by pseudo-science and unchallenged 1 hour 45 minute videos full of carefully manipulated and selective information (which coincidentally panders to your personal attraction to conspiracy theories) doesn't mean the wider world takes it seriously for a second

Gage just continues to make money from his whacky theories (.. with no actual theory, just a vague idea that seems to change and morph every few years)

False he represents Architects and Engineers who doubt the official story. Every person signed up is credited and has a professional checkable background in the field of study they claim.

NIST budget is funded by the US government they are not an independent regulated body. They had to adhere to strict guidelines or they lose their big budget. It obvious why they never tested for explosives and thermite as it would potentially expose it was not just 19 hijackers who carried out the attacks.

You continue to ignore blatantly obvious errors in their study as if it doesn't matter.

Cheerful Spring · 09-08-2018 8:45pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's naive to pretend the Saudis didn't know of the 911 plot. Announcing it openly to the Americans would have achieved nothing, no one pays attention to failed plots. It would have made Saudi look bad at no gain to themselves. They knew that Bush, Rove and Cheney were chomping at the bit to get Saddam and go into Iraq - the Neocon doctrine was no secret, but they couldn't drag the US into war for no reason. Here was the perfect reason.

Coincidentally in a spectacular "failure" of intelligence the US didn't spot it, somehow this glaring plot wasn't picked up by the FBI or CIA - which had operatives everywhere. They both happened to know nothing about a plot that was mutually beneficial to both sides. With all the info we have now, the redacted pages, etc its beyond a stretch to entertain for one second they didn't know. When the attack happened Bush subsequently shot up in the polls and the US subsequently invaded Iraq - the Saudis immediately welcomed the US on Saudi soil to attack one of their major foes and competitors in the region. Win-win for all.

Any trace of knowledge of this at offices (conveniently located in the WTC plaza) could "go up in smoke". NORAD just "happened" to be caught with their pants down. No one spots the attack.. at all. Not only that, but the attack is a major success, nothing goes wrong. Amazing how flawlessly it went, when we can see how inept the hijackers were and how individual agents in the intelligence agencies actually knew of their existence on US soil prior to the attack.. I guess their superiors took the "hands-off" approach

It's great fun to make up stuff, fantastical conspiracies, no one can refute it and I can go around in circles defending it forever. I don't even need to waste time attacking the NIST or "proving" demolitions. All I need to do is flesh it out with all the selective details of Saudi agents, the FBI agent who spotted a "chink" in the plan, the cosy Bush-Saud relationship, the "miraculous" ease at which the hijackers carried everything out.. the usual conspiracy trick of selectively picking things that happened and gluing them into the narrative. Once it gets out on the internet, it just gains validation and life from all the non-critical-thinking people who have a penchant for conspiracy theories

See this is the thing is not made up stuff. You prefer to dismiss information that doesn't fit with your belief about 9/11.

Tell that to the 9/11 families who are now suing Saudi Arabia. The fact you dismiss this as nothing shame on you. These people have the right to know why this happened and who was behind the killing of their husbands, wives, daughters and sons.

Mike Hoch · 11-08-2018 12:06pm

One thing nobody has explained, what would be the Saudi state motivation?

The US military was in Saudi as a guest of the Saudi government. They used them as a buffer to Iraqi army activity.

Saudi intelligence tipped off the US of an impending plot.

Al Qaeda despised the Saudi royal family/ ruling class.

I don't doubt Saudi officials with AQ sympathies were involved, but the government itself, I fail to see the motive.

Dohnjoe · 11-08-2018 1:56pm

Mike Hoch wrote: »

One thing nobody has explained, what would be the Saudi state motivation?

The US military was in Saudi as a guest of the Saudi government. They used them as a buffer to Iraqi army activity.

Saudi intelligence tipped off the US of an impending plot.

Al Qaeda despised the Saudi royal family/ ruling class.

I don't doubt Saudi officials with AQ sympathies were involved, but the government itself, I fail to see the motive.

From my "theory", Saddam was a bigger thorn in their side. AQ was the lesser of two evils - their existence could almost be described as favorable for Saudi geopolitical goals (erase Iraq as a threat and competitor in the region)

Cheerful Spring · 12-08-2018 8:33pm

Mike Hoch wrote: »

One thing nobody has explained, what would be the Saudi state motivation?

The US military was in Saudi as a guest of the Saudi government. They used them as a buffer to Iraqi army activity.

Saudi intelligence tipped off the US of an impending plot.

Al Qaeda despised the Saudi royal family/ ruling class.

I don't doubt Saudi officials with AQ sympathies were involved, but the government itself, I fail to see the motive.

During the first gulf war, Saddam tried to invade Saudi Arabia but he got stopped early. He fired a few missiles at them. He also fired Scuds at Israel.

Their lot of reasons Saudis would carry out a false flag, to get rid of Saddam, and also get rid of their enemies in Syria, Iran, Libya and other countries. General Wesley Clark just a week after 9/11 saw a memo listing 7 countries in the middle east they planned to take over the plan was huge in scope, but Iraq was such a quagmire they did not go ahead with invading Syria and Iran. They have though supported the revolutions in the middle east and supplied jihadists with weapons and funding.

When you talking about a deep state involvement in 9/11. That's the American neocon side who are actually more loyal to Israel than there own country. These people are likely to be involved to enrich themselves and help Israel in the region. They even said in 1997 ( project for the new American century) there will have to be a new pearl harbour against the United States for us to achieve our aims and goals. Four years later they got what they hoped for and my opinion they were involved in it.

Cheerful Spring · 18-08-2018 12:27pm

Just stumbled across this and in my opinion proves the conspiracy.

NASA 5 days after the event recorded thermal images using an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer. 6 hotspots were imaged over a wide area near the buildings collapse. The (hottest) area- hotspot A- recorded heat spike of 720c celsius. I looked at the map and noticed hotspot A is the area where WTC7 collapsed.

These images are confirming what the eyewitnesses saw. NIST claims there were no excessively high temperatures in the rubble?

Thier own study exposes this lie because they claim around 4 pm to 5 pm the fires had cooled to around 200c and there was no fire anywhere in WTC7 hotter than this.

So what could have caused heat spikes of 720c 5 days after the collapse? This can only be truly explained if there was a chemical reaction occurring still that was sustaining the heat.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

King Mob · 18-08-2018 12:42pm

Neither a controlled demolition of any kind nor thermite would result in these things.
So your evidence disproves the conspiracy.

Cheerful Spring · 18-08-2018 1:01pm

King Mob wrote: »

Neither a controlled demolition of any kind nor thermite would result in these things.
So your evidence disproves the conspiracy.

Yes, it would thermite has its own oxygen supply it does not need air. Thermite is the only way to explain this intense heat 5 days after the event.

Read NIST they said floor fires were 200c on sep11 and 5 days later Nasa thermal images show heat spikes of 727c that defies logic. What can cause a 500c heat increase in the rubble that cannot occur naturally?

King Mob · 18-08-2018 1:51pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes, it would thermite has its own oxygen supply it does not need air.

Cept that thermite doesn't burn that long.

Please point to an example of a building that had been taken down by thermite, and show that it remained hot after several days.
Just one example will do.
No rush.

Cheerful Spring · 18-08-2018 2:08pm

King Mob wrote: »

Cept that thermite doesn't burn that long.

Please point to an example of a building that had been taken down by thermite, and show that it remained hot after several days.
Just one example will do.
No rush.

Professor Harrit believes the red/grey chips are nano-thermite. He only sees them under an electron microscope. He said this can only be engineered in a lab. The chips were 100nv (nanometers) too small to be standard thermite. If it nano-thermite it will have an explosive component too that's why the US military was developing it for. Nano-thermite found does not rule out conventional explosives were used also like C4 or something else. NIST never investigated if explosives or thermite were used.

Harrit says in his opinion the red/grey chips are unreacted thermite that has not gone off. Harrit collected samples days and weeks, even months not sure and the red/chips were still igniting when heated to 430c.

So thermite still left on metals and other surfaces on the rubble and underneath could still be reacting when exposed to heat.

There no explaining this naturally why the WTC7 rubble would be experiencing heat spikes of 727 celsius when NIST claims the fires inside WTC7 before the collapse was 200 Celsius. When the building collapsed fires should be cooling down not heating up.

We have two smoking guns the building was taken down unnaturally the red/grey chips found and the Nasa images expose this conspiracy.

King Mob · 18-08-2018 2:10pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

So thermite still left on metals and other surfaces on the rubble and underneath could still be reacting when exposed to heat.
.

Cool. Example of this happening please?
Just one. Just point the name of the building and a link to something referencing it.
I'd even just take one that was taken down by any kind of thermite.

Again, no rush.

King Mob · 18-08-2018 2:12pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Professor Harrit believes the red/grey chips are nano-thermite.

Dr Judy Wood believes that the towers were taken down with a space laser.
The NIST never investigated the possibility of space lasers.

Cheerful Spring · 18-08-2018 2:21pm

King Mob wrote: »

Cool. Example of this happening please?
Just one. Just point the name of the building and a link to something referencing it.
I'd even just take one that was taken down by any kind of thermite.

Again, no rush.

Your request is nonsensical. Professor Harrit found nano-thermite particles (red/grey chips) in the dust and first talks about this substance appeared in papers in the late 90's. You can't buy this stuff off a wholesaler.

It, not standard thermite is nano-thermite.

King Mob · 18-08-2018 2:23pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your request is nonsensical. Professor Harrit found nano-thermite particles (red/grey chips) in the dust and first talks about this substance appeared in papers in the late 90's. You can't buy this stuff off a wholesaler.

It, not standard thermite is nano-thermite.

Pretty straight forward I thought.
Point to an example of a building being taken down by thermite, nano or otherwise.

Are you not able to do this?

Cheerful Spring · 18-08-2018 2:24pm

King Mob wrote: »

Dr Judy Wood believes that the towers were taken down with a space laser.
The NIST never investigated the possibility of space lasers.

You ignoring physical evidence was found and photographed and videoed. There no photographs or evidence of space lasers being used to strike the twin towers.. Who cares what Judy Wood thinks that's her opinion.

Cheerful Spring · 18-08-2018 2:27pm

King Mob wrote: »

Pretty straight forward I thought.
Point to an example of a building being taken down by thermite, nano or otherwise.

Are you not able to do this?

WTC7 clear as day physical evidence was found and Nasa images are prove NIST is lying. You can't explain the 500c heat spike so you are resorting to whataboutery. This is typical of Skeptics who refuse to acknowledge the evidence.

King Mob · 18-08-2018 2:28pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You ignoring physical evidence was found and photographed and videoed. There no photographs or evidence of space lasers being used to strike the twin towers.. Who cares what Judy Wood thinks that's her opinion.

Lol.
She points to plenty of evidence of the same quality you are posting.
There is no photographs or the thermite charges used.

And we should listen to her about the same as we should your professor.

People with titles believe stupid things, like space lasers and nano-thermite.

King Mob · 18-08-2018 2:29pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is typical of Skeptics who refuse to acknowledge the evidence.

So there is no other examples of a building ever being taken down by thermite?
Why not?

Cheerful Spring · 18-08-2018 2:35pm

King Mob wrote: »

Lol.
She points to plenty of evidence of the same quality you are posting.
There is no photographs or the thermite charges used.

And we should listen to her about the same as we should your professor.

People with titles believe stupid things, like space lasers and nano-thermite.

Again falsehoods. Nano-thermite was found. Skeptics have been unable to give an explantation what the red/grey chips are. Skeptics on JREF forums seem to be held in higher regard than a professor who taught at a university in Denmark

The heat spikes Nasa imaged go along way to supporting Professor Harrit believes something you are choosing to ignore. NIST even in their own report only record fires of 200c in WTC7.

NASA images show surface heat spikes of 727c at the same site WTC7 collapsed 5 days later. You can't have your cake and eat it.

King Mob · 18-08-2018 2:41pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Again falsehoods. Nano-thermite was found. Skeptics have been unable to give an explantation what the red/grey chips are. Skeptics on JREF forums seem to be held in higher regard than a professor who taught at a university in Denmark

The heat spikes Nasa imaged go along way to supporting Professor Harrit believes something you are choosing to ignore. NIST even in their own report only record fires of 200c in WTC7.

NASA images show surface heat spikes of 727c at the same site WTC7 collapsed 5 days later. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Dr Judy Wood found plenty of things that point to her space laser conclusion.
And she's a doctor, do you not hold her in high regard?

And again, these temperature spikes can be explained by space lasers.
Therefore it's space lasers.
Why are you ignoring the evidence?

Also, can you point to a building that was taken down by thermite? Yes or no?

Cheerful Spring · 18-08-2018 2:41pm

King Mob wrote: »

So there is no other examples of a building ever being taken down by thermite?
Why not?

It's not standard thermite like already told you. The red/chips are 100nanometters in size this has never been seen before now. The red/chips can only be engineered in a lab, that was in his paper. The red/chips, when heated, experienced an exothermic reaction at very low temperatures of 430c this unlikely to happen with standard thermite.

King Mob · 18-08-2018 2:44pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It's not standard thermite like already told you.

The type of thermite doesn't matter. You seem to be having trouble reading a very simple request.

Just point to one example of a building being taken down by any type of thermite. Just one. Any one.

Can you not find any examples or something?

Cheerful Spring · 18-08-2018 2:46pm

King Mob wrote: »

Dr Judy Wood found plenty of things that point to her space laser conclusion.
And she's a doctor, do you not hold her in high regard?

And again, these temperature spikes can be explained by space lasers.
Therefore it's space lasers.
Why are you ignoring the evidence?

Also, can you point to a building that was taken down by thermite? Yes or no?

So she has a photograph of space laser hitting the twin towers, or do you mean something else?

I never said the building was only taken down by just nano-thermite, I can't rule out explosives were used too. What Professor Harrit found is prove this building did not come down naturally.

Cheerful Spring · 18-08-2018 2:48pm

King Mob wrote: »

The type of thermite doesn't matter. You seem to be having trouble reading a very simple request.

Just point to one example of a building being taken down by any type of thermite. Just one. Any one.

Can you not find any examples or something?

Yes it does matter if you can find thermite that is 100 nanometers in size and reacts at low temperatures. I let you go and find examples of that.

King Mob · 18-08-2018 2:51pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

So she has a photograph of space laser hitting the twin towers, or do you mean something else?

No. She has evidence of things that can be only caused by space lasers.

Do you have a photograph of the charges used?
Do you have an example of any building ever being taken down by any type of thermite.

Kind of a hypocritical question for you to ask.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I never said the building was only taken down by just nano-thermite, I can't rule out explosives were used too. What Professor Harrit found is prove this building did not come down naturally.

And I'm sure Dr Judy Wood can't rule out land based lasers and holographic planes also.

Again, why do you not believe a doctor's conclusion? Do you not hold her in high regard?

NIST 9/11 report EXPOSED-A former employee Speaks Out

Comments