Sunday, 1 February 2009


The entire lecture is available here:

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, February 1st, 2009.]


Nickname unavailable said...

Steve, Simon here again.

I don't know how you can believe this video and ignore the very logical, very clear debunking of this sort of bizarre pseudo science as demonstrated in videos like:


steven andresen said...


I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. I have not tried to ignore any "debunking."

Your you tube, have I seen anything like it before?


steven andresen said...


O.K., now I've seen the video...

I now understand that you think the "thermate " claim is bogus. The video you directed me to argues that "reasonable" scientists would question this claim in such a way that it would not stand up to scrutiny. It argues there was no thermate, ergo, no planted explosives.

I am not familiar with the claim, I only suspect that it is a good question and a plausible hypothesis. The buildings looked like they were brought down by something other than a plane on day one. So, I am skeptical of the claim that they collapsed due to fires.

Was thermate used to destroy the superstructure of the buildings? I don't know. The question is whether there were explosives or some other agent to assist in their destruction. The other question would be, if so, what would that agent be?

Let me look at the videaos. I was put off by their poor sound quality.


SpookyPunkos said...


It seems you did not pay any attention to my previous rebuttal to this debunker video.

For your benefit I have re-printed my response:

THE PREVIOUS REBUTTAL [with additional comments inserted]:

The video's counter argument, against Steven Jones' Thermate work, is not even a true rebuttal but a clever attempt at de-railing the debate. A hatchet job based on misinformation and distortions ...

Here is a summary of the mistakes, errors, lies present in the video you cite. There are 4 I can readily identify:

1. It avoids any discussion as to what sort of metal samples were analysed. Of particular note is fact that the samples showing Thermate/thermite products consisted of Iron rich SPHERES. These spheres, prevalent in the WTC Dust, could only have formed due to the metal being at temperatures ABOVE its melting point of 1500 degrees celcius. (the spheres are formed due to surface tension acting whilst the metal is superhot- the same principle was used to create lead musket balls by dropping molten lead from a high tower in times past. Go and look it up !) The obvious question is how did the building fires reach these extreme temperatures when the evidence (even the NIST report confirms this) shows fire temperatures in the order of 600-650 degrees celcius ? The spheres in themselves are damning evidence of foul play.

2. The rebuttal video also has to explain how these WTC iron spheres became "fused" with all the other elements present in the Towers, without experiencing superhot (explosive/incendary)temperatures, AND in the correct ratios, so as to CLOSELY MATCH known thermate examples. Please note, there is nothing suspicious about the tests conducted by Steven Jones. He merely followed the same type of analysis as used by fire investigators in order to determine whether arson had been committed. In this case arson (thermate/thermite) was proved.

3. The video misleadingly addresses the ratios of Sulfur (an ingredient of thermate/thermite) that Dr Jones expected would be present if 1000 pounds of explosives were used to demolish the WTC- the vid claims that the ratios found in the samples represented amounts much greater than predicted by Jones' claim thus discrediting his position. This, however, is a totally bogus argument and avoids the fact that the criticism here is directed solely towards a HYPOTHETICAL case made by Dr Jones and does not address any hard evidence such as the ACTUAL ratios of Sulfur, found in the iron rich samples, that just happened to MATCH levels expected for thermate/thermite type incendaries ! Quite likely more than a 1000 pounds of Thermate were used.

4. The video outright lies when it claims that "a reasonable scientist would ensure that all of the elements of thermate are present, and this is where Steven Jones' thermate claim completely, utterly falls apart" going on to mention that Aluminium Oxide and Baruim Nitrate should have been detected but weren't. However, Aluminium and Oxygen were found in the slag and iron sphere samples AND in ratios entirely consistent with a thermate/thermite type reaction. Furthermore, Barium Nitrate, is NOT a necessary component of Thermate and may or may not be present. BN is not even a key ingredient needed in terms of burning power either- all it does is lower the ignition temperature (to make it easier to light) and creates a lot of flame. Barium Nitrate is only used in some variations of the incendary.

Please consider: that an explanation that does not adequately cover the specific facts of the case is no explanation at all- especially ones that use false arguments (the sulfur ratio hypothetical) and gross distortions (lying about the required elements necessary for thermate-BN).

The fact of the matter is that we do not know exactly what sort of incendaries and explosives were used, but we do have very very strong evidence (from the analysis on the iron spheres) indicating it consisted of some variation of thermate -meaning that at least part of the collapses involved the this type of incendary.

The science regarding the steel/iron from the WTC site is sound.

Note: there has been no professional rebuttal to the evidence presented by Jones or the other scientists at Scholars For 911 Truth and Justice -or against the work presented at Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. All we get are these half-arsed debunking vids, and similar false claims and arguments put out by Popular Mechanics reps, that although very clever, do not stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

I am sorry you were persuaded by this stuff.


Simon, there is nothing you can present here that I cannot thoroughly demolish by using scientific knowledge and principles.

I think you should not instantly believe the stuff you see that makes claims saying the conspiracy crowd are frauds etc, when these debunkers are the ones perpetuating the fraud.

If it were so easy for the officials to stand up to their reports, why won't they debate the 911 truth people ? Why do the official scientific accounts have giant holes in them ? (do some research here) The arrows are all pointing in the same direction. The officials are the ones attempting a coverup and are not engaging in the debate proper.

Go to the Journal of 911 Studies and do some reading. Also, ask yourself why so many Architects and Engineers at AE911truth signed up. Surely some of the fire engineering guys over there would recognise the validity of the debunkers claims you are putting forth.

The lesson here is to never trust anything put out by the authorities, or those that support them, without double checking.

Your claim that I have ignored "the very logical, very clear debunking of this sort of bizzare pseudo science" cannot be further from the truth. You've been tricked ! You need to do some better research.

Good Luck !


Nickname unavailable said...

Well, I'm perfectly happy with the reasoning and arguments put forth in videos such as that and the popular mechanics articles (such as this one)

Then I'm also more than happy to take on board these debunking of the Iron rich sphere line of argument:
This one
This one

Which links to many great little snippets like this scientific lecture to Jones on a forum where he gets his complete lack of knowledge on the finer points of things pointed out to him.

Again, we take an improbable thing happening (A co-ordinated hijacking of 4 planes which then were flown into things), but we know happened because we saw them. And then you try to overlay even more improbability on TOP of that by saying that as well as that there had to be another coordinated planting of explosives etc. in secret.

None of which is born out by evidence unless you chose to ignore the wider picture rather than focusing in on small things that HAVE been properly, and scientifically debunked.

To say to never believe in anything given out by authorities without checking is all well and good, but what checking are you doing yourself against those like Jones?


Nickname unavailable said...

Also, I've just started watching this video (from the site I linked to in the last post), and I'm thinking it's going to be a very fine video at pointing out all the fallacies in the theories you suppose here:

SpookyPunkos said...


I see you have assembled quite a collection of junk. It will take some time to go through this mess.


To begin, I find it very hard to believe you are "happy" with the first video link you provided seeing as I thoroughly debunked it. It seems to me your "happy" emotional state belies the fact that you have not taken on board anything I have pointed out. For your benefit I will again highlight the errors with this first video:

1. In reference to the last claim that Barium Nitrate is a common component of Thermate, and was not present, and therefore it ain't thermate- that's a lie. It's disinformation. Do you know why Barium Nitrate might be absent and why it is only used in some versions of Thermate ? It's used to increase the explosive volitility of the substance especially when used in grenades. It's not an essential ingredient. If you were going to use Thermate to weaken the WTC buildings why would you need increase its "splash" effects ?

2. The video also dances on a HYPOTHETICAL put out by Dr Jones about the amount of explosives required based on the high amounts of sulfur found. This is not a valid line of attack since we really can't say how much would be required. I suggest Dr Jones was implying that it might not require as much explosive as thought. It's pure speculation. However, we CAN say that there are strong indications that the components of the iron rich spheres, including the large percentage of sulfur, DID match those known signatures of Thermates.

3. The video claims that the Thermate signature (admitting through implication that it was detected) was was likely due to a combination of common building components. However, the video neglects to say that this signature was evidenced specifically from the once molten iron rich spheres. There is no explanation given in the video for how the iron rich spheres came to be composed of all these thermate elements in the right quanities. The fact that there might have been been the right elements in the buildings does not equate to them heating up and turning themselves into a thermate slag to be found all over the dust in those iron rich spheres (which also implies that a lot of steel was subject to the thermate).

4. The ABUNDANT iron rich spheres, which are avoided in the thermate debunking in the vid, straight away point to foul play. The spheres, especially the larger ones, indicate extreme levels of heat beyond that generated by the building fires. These bits of metal had reached temperatures exceeding their melting points, temps that were much higher than the fires had reached which even NISTs admits concedes.

Simon, we have just trashed the validity of that first debunker video so you can scratch that off your list.


Now we will move onto your next link which is perhaps the worst of the lot, it is the unfounded and dishonest NIST explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 [in a 6 question and answer format]. I see you have sourced this from a Popular Mechanics article. I am surprised you keep going back to this lot after PM has been thoroughly and utterly exposed and written off by so many (google it).

Nevertheless, what we are talking about here is the NIST WTC7 collapse explanation, which in itself, has been thoroughly debunked by experts. Please pay attention here because the NIST statements are very easy to disprove. There are no tricks. Think about the empirical evidence. I will summarise rebuttals to each of their fallacious claims:

1. NIST CLAIMS: "Fire did indeed inflict enough column damage to destroy the building through a previously undocumented collapse sequence of thermal expansion."

REBUTTAL: There is no evidence for this supposition. This conclusion was based solely on a HYPOTHETICAL computer model that does not even match the observed collapse features. If you watch closely the NIST model has the building warping and buckling where we see no such distortions. Their models show the beginnings of an asymmetrical fall yet stop short of showing us the full sequence (to hide the dissimilarity to the actual event). Unsurprisingly no one is allowed to verify the NIST computer modelling here, same with the models for the Twin Towers. For all we know they might have all the veracity of the physics appearing in a Disney animation. Furthermore, the thermal expansion theory itself is implausible given the redundant features of the building's internal structure. There's simply no evidence for thermal expansion and the models they use do not match- at all.

2. NIST CLAIMS: That although "The shape of the building's tidy pile of wreckage is consistent with a demolition" it can be fully explained with their collapse model" in which those "thermally expanding" columns and the floor failures dragged the building into itself.

REBUTTAL: The shape of the building's rubble pile is also consistent with a controlled demolition- even more so than for the NIST model. The most accurate NIST model we have does not show the full collapse. I have seen no full animation run to from start to finish which shows the resulting pile. Nevertheless, regardless as to how the suspect NIST modelling performed with regard to this feature, the pile is consistent with both HYPOTHESES.

3. NIST CLAIMS: WTC 7 could not have been subject to demolition or Thermate because A. "the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away." and there were no reports of such a sound; and B. "If [for a quiet collapse senario] you look at the amount [of thermate] needed—at least 100 pounds for one column—you need someone to get that amount in the building, and place it, and for the reaction to take place. It is unlikely."

REBUTTAL: A. There were extremelty loud explosions heard in association with the collapses, in between collapses etc. We have audio of numerous very loud explosions on video. The NIST team here is either putting out a lie or they are incompetent. B. The fact that he thinks it "unlikely" Thermate could have been placed in the building does not rule it out. We actually have forensic evidence for thermates and evidence of molten steel/iron in the rubble piles indicating the presence of incendiaries. NIST's refusal to address this material, considering they employed NanoThermate experts, who must also be considered as suspects in the demolitions, reveals much.

4. NIST CLAIMS: That they took so long to "discover" the cause of the WTC 7 collapse because the particulars of WTC 7's design contributed to the thermal expansion, that there was no precident, [therein] saying "It did not fit any textbook description that you could readily point to and say, yes, that's why the building failed." The issue, Sunder said, was that buildings are not typically tested for their structural response to fire.

REBUTTAL: The collapse of WTC7 fitted a classic "textbook description" of a controlled demolition. The waffle about the thermal expansion HYPOTHETICAL is again unfounded conjecture portrayed as the end result of a legitimate long running "investigation". However, the problem remains that the NIST models do not match the observations. And to say that the longer floor beam design (see the article) worked against the building's structural integrity, such that it would collapse when only weak fires were present, is completely unproven. It's validity approaches zero when we consider the mountain of physical evidence supporting the controlled demolition proposition. The difficulty in their coming to a solid conclusion is not born out by their paper thin explanation. Additionally the claim about the buildings not being tested for their structural response to fire is questionable. Those high rise steel buildings ARE designed with fires in mind.

5. NIST CLAIM: That the minimal wreckage available for later investigation was not of concern & not a sign of a cover up because;
Compared to WTC 1 and 2, NIST had very little WTC 7 wreckage to study. The site was cleared quickly in a search-an- rescue effort, and much of the debris was transported to salvage yards. "There was no loss of life," Sunder noted. "In hindsight, we knew that the building was evacuated. But we didn't know that on that day." Hundreds of investigators at the salvage yards later found that the Twin Towers' steel columns were labeled and numbered, while the columns from Towers 5, 6 and 7 were not. "I am not surprised that there wasn't a lot of identifiable debris," Sunder said. "But at the time, we were concerned about terrorists who attacked our country and search and rescue. I think the fact that they [invesigators] didn't collect [wreckage] was the least important activity that happened that day."

REBUTTAL: It this a joke ? What does search and rescue in the Towers vs the WTC 7 wreckage have to do with conserving the steel for later investigation? The search and rescue did not go on during the entire "clean up". There was plenty of time to label and move debris to other locations for analysis. The ridiculousness of this non-answer is self evident. Most of the steel was illegally shipped away for melting down before a "real" investigation could be undertaken. Ground zero was crime scene and the political authorities had no right to dispose of the materials. NISTs excuses here do not hold water.

6. NIST CLAIMS: The long delay in an explanatory report is not proof of a government coverup because they "first had to complete the investigation on the collapse of the Twin Towers ...[fix up] computer programs that took six to eight months to get a correct run, and we wanted to make sure we got this right. [plus] "We didn't have the insight that thermal expansion could have happened until early last year,"

REBUTTAL: The long delay is not the problem, the science is. This is where we see the signs of a cover up. The Twin Towers computer modelling is UNAVAILABLE for independent evaluation, as is the WTC7 modelling. Most of their reports ignore much of the physical evidence and the anomalous collapse features. The Twin Tower analysis stops short of describing the collapses themselves, leaving us with only a HYPOTHETICAL as to how the buildings may have come down due to fire in the face of the physical evidence indicating explosives/incendiaries. Similarly the WTC 7 report relys on unlikely HYPOTHETICAL computer models, as mentioned previously.

Finally I would like to make one more point about the WTC7 collapse and that is the building was at one point in COMPLETE FREEFALL for a period of slighly more than 2 seconds. NIST now admits this fact. The significance is that for a substantial period of its fall, with the outer walls straight, and some resistance still being offered by the internal columns, even if buckled, the buiding fell as if only air were pushing back. This is a disturbing observation that cannot be explained by NIST. It defies the laws of physics. It was as if the columns and all walls completely disappeared, not buckled, but removed.

Well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Considering the discussion above and also evidence of people inside WTC 7 who experienced huge explosions, to say that this is not a case of CD, as NIST contends, is madness. Quack Quack.

Simon, please scratch out that NIST trash on your list. It's for the tip.

I see you have read the clever arguments offered by the JREF crowd. Ok, the lesson here is that there are hardcore debunkers out there who will severely twist the reality of the situation to fool the intelligent. I don't know what their real agenda is but they're obviously up to no good. They'll have you stuck on false premises, following invalid lines of argument, or plain lie to you about the strength of the material evidence based on relatively trivial/misleading obsevations declaring that Jones must be an idiot etc etc. If you like large doses of sarcasim ta boot, they you must like these guys.

There are two JREF links you provide, separated by a link to the arch troll debunker Mark Roberts, which I won't deconstruct this time around as I think I have done enough here for one day.

THE FIRST JREF LINK: This JREF forum link does make a few valid criticisms, but it is essentially nit picking the data on relatively minor issues. I will address only a few of the most relevant points out of the 9 appearing:

1. The author contends that there may be a problem with the detected elements if a SDD detector is used. However, it appears the Scanning Electron Microscope used a Si(Li) detector. This is important to clarify because it helps to negate criticism of the elements that appear in the study results.

3. There do appear to be problems with Jones' reporting of approximate particle deviations to one decimal place when the error percentage should be higher. Nevertheless the elements detected are there, and in ratios consistent to Thermates regardless.

4. This is a good bit of debunker disinfo. It's very very misleading. The author is trying to respond to Dr Jones' important observation that "The Fe-S-AL-O signature is striking, nothing like the signature of structural steel" by contending that the sample is somehow not derived from the building steel but from somewhere else. He points to Dr Greening, a troll, who has said that "we can't simply assume the only source of iron in the WTC dust was from steel". Nevertheless, this signature is one of a Thermate byproduct and it is nonetheless "nothing like the signature of structural steel". Furthermore, the abundance of Iron rich spheres indicates a LARGE amount of iron was required. To account for these iron spheres an example of the rice husk ash was put forward as if such other materials could provide a source of microspheres. This is crazy. The analogy doesn't fit with the sorts of relatively large iron spheres that were present, plus this iron would not have a thermate composition. You can see here how the argument has been derailed by following a false debunker line of reasoning. It's a false analogy- the prime weapon of the sophisticated troll. It's all fine "logically", if you accept that their examples fit the situation, but the example cited does not fit the observations.

I'm going to leave the deconstruction of this JREF post right here and move on, except to say that the ridicule injected into the link ("lunacy" etc), and the rant at the end is very misplaced. Reading it now, I can see it's clever garbage. No wonder no one wants to debate these people. I sincerely hope you can get past your ego to see what I mean about the "evidence" that's presented by these individuals. No offence is intended here.

Please add this JREF link to the trash heap. There's a few valid observations here but it's trash. It goes in the tip.

THE SECOND JREF ARTICLE: This JREF article, which you label as a "great little snippet" is much easier to demolish. You say that Dr Jones gets "his complete lack of knowledge on the finer points of things pointed out to him." Don't get ahead of yourself ! Thankfully for myself and Dr Jones, Dr Greening is an easy target because he likes to try on obviously false arguments, that are not backed by good science. You seem to think Greening knows what he is talking about. Well it's true he probably does, but he uses it to mislead and confuse.

Case in point: The incinerator analogy is clever, but it does not cut the mustard. There are numerous problems trying to match this "explanation" for producing iron microspheres to the WTC building fires and the actual iron spheres found in the dust.

1. The ash incinerator cited by Dr Greening runs at 1000 degrees celcius over a prolonged period of time, as does the coal boiler. The WTC building fires were not 1000 degree fires. The fires according to NIST were barely up to 700 degrees. The WTC fires were relatively short duration and open flame. It was not a raging inferno. The fire conditions are not the same.

2. It mentions that the spherical particles were "up to 60 microns in diameter" in the case of the MSW incinerator. I take the phrase "up to" to mean these were the largest sized particles. The WTC iron spheres were in many cases substantially larger. This does not match up.

3. Although Dr Greening mentions the spheres of up to 60 microns he does not talk about the composition of these for comparison. At the top he talks about the ash composition, but not the composition of the spheres. This is important seeing as the thermate trace elements were specifically evidenced from the WTC iron spheres (and slag).

4. Dr Greening even mentions he has micrographs of the spheres he's talking about as if this is significant. It is up to a point. Micrographs are photos. The question remains as to the composition of the elements in the pictures.

5. The amount of "fire/incinerator" action in the Twin Towers and Building 7 would have to be astronomical in order to produce the masses of iron spheres found in the dust. The amount of iron in the dust as shown by FEMA, USGS, and independent researchers is substantial, such that this limited source of iron particles, as proposed in Dr Greening's incinerator hypothetical, would be insufficient.

6. Although coal fired boilers do produce small iron microspheres at temps below 1400 degrees C, less than the melting point of Iron, the temperatures here still exceed 1000 degrees C. The World Trade Centre fires were not like that of a coal fired boiler.

7. In further speculation Dr Greening discusses the chemical soup that included buring plastics, residual fuel oil, gypsum and battery acid. Dr Greening presents a difficult process that would only produce scant amouts of iron chlorides needed for his model to work. Also, the processes he is describing deals with temperatures in the order of 1000 degress C, which does not match any of the fire data. This analogy is basically bankrupt from the start. It cannot account for mass of iron spheres seen throughout the dust. This sort of banter might sound impressive but again it does not account for the observations. Greening is certainly not teaching Jones about the "finer points" of anything here.

8. Dr Greening chastises Dr Jones for contaminating his samples with sand, unless he can show that commercial Thermites might contain silicon. Perhaps Dr Jones did contaminate his sample but you can actually make Thermite using silicon instead of iron oxides. I do not know the conditions under which silicon appeared in his results, but in some circumstances its presence would certainly not be unexpected.

Thus far I have not seen ANY adequate debunker rebuttals to the evidence showing that 911 was an inside job, with regard to the thermate or molten steel evidence. In fact over at JREF I see that they have been given a run for their money in a thread entitled thermate/thermite. The cat was definitely among the pigeons on that one. The most revealing aspect here is the amount of ridicule and nastiness present. Why some of the posters have not been warned or banned reveals much I think.

Simon, I do not think Dr Jones is an incompetent or a fraud, he's just trying to push his investigations along in the face of stringent opposition and he is learning a few things along the way. He is researching complex material evidence and following the scientific method.

Btw, Dr Greening's criticisms can also go in the garbage too.


Sorry, Simon, you seem to be operating from a gammit of false assumptions. You've been severely tricked.

Dude, I have not only focused in on "small things that have been properly and scientifically debunked" as you claim while ignoring the wider evidence. I'm aware of the wider evidence, but YOU seem to have missed the significance with regard to the hard forensic evidence (ie. the "small things").

FACT: There was molten steel under those buildings, and thermate traces have been detected. Yes, people did report huge explosions in all the three buildings well away from the damaged areas. And what about your layers of improbability ? Look at the evidence. If it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, then it's in the tip, or at least shoved to the side for the time being as we must do with all the official reports into 911. If the evidence shows the improbable happened, then so be it.

And no, I am not going to address the latest video link you've posted. I'm sure you can see why.

It might be hard for you to understand but science and politics can be very much interwoven. The world is not a nice place and it is a lot more corrupt than you imagine. You still proceed from a set of false assumptions, that those officials, and the debunkers cannot possibly be lying or misrepresenting the evidence. Snap out of it. :P

Nickname unavailable said...

Well, I've finished watching the last video (48mins or so), and I'm done, dusted, this whole conspiracy line is completely unfounded as I thought it was.

Just starting from the BASE assumption that you have that the buildings were demolished... well, it just doesn't fit in ANY way.

Watch ANY of the videos of the event and try to demonstrate any explosive sound or debris from an explosion, you can't, because it never happened. The buildings started falling with but the sound of themselves falling into themselves.

End of story, no further argument need be.

I'm fully happy to wonder who exactly attacked the US then, that's an entirely different argument, but trying to suggest that the buildings were brought down by any form of demolition is absurd.

And continuing to claim that you have these amazing answers about 'iron rich spheres' etc. is doing the classic conspiracy non logical attack:
* Ignore the easy to disprove basis for your entire argument, that the trade centers were demolished by explosives and thermate (Which is not an explosive, only an incendiary and is "notoriously difficult to ignite, initiating the reaction normally requires trained human supervision and sometimes persistent effort."), because that is just so easy to disprove from the videos of what actually happened. (No explosions, stop trying to use 'eyewitness' accounts as saying they heard explosions when you can watch YOURSELF many different angles of the towers collapsing WITH SOUND and hear nothing. And SEE nothing in regards to ANY ejecting matter.

So, having that being so easily disproved, the usual conspiracy line is to find some really obscure thing that they can claim to be out of the ordinary and point at that as some proof that their earlier, very easily disproved, assumption was in fact right.

It doesn't work Steve, you're taking AS FAITH what the 'truthers' are saying is real about iron spheres and thermate etc. and yet IGNORING the other scientist who say it's a complete load of hogwash.

I'm done, I have no more time at all to spend on this, I just wanted to make sure I had read and seen enough to completely convince myself, I have, I'm more than happy... I am however sad that you spend so much time pursuing this fruitless line of 'investigation' when you could be spending your time on so many other things.

You say that I'm coming from a naive position, but I think you over, over, over compensate by seeing EVERYTHING as a conspiracy or a lie unless it's spoken by someone with no authority at all.

That doesn't work.

I'm done.


SpookyPunkos said...


You really have your head in the sand.

You talk about logic, yet your arguments show that you are not thinking logically at all.

Your generalisations are based on false assumptions, and the specific information you have provided so far has been tripe.

The truth here has nothing to do with faith despite your mischaracterisation of the situation. You sound exactly like those no good debunkers.

I believe that you don't really understand the situation we are in. Those official reports hide information and lie about the facts, yet this does not seem to bother you.

I think you don't realise that there are paid individuals out there who are actively trying to distort evidence, but no no, that's just conspiracy talk, that would never happen, all the officials and debunkers, a priori, must be telling the truth.

The view you have taken here is not very logical. Once again I will refer you to the factual material at hand:

You have mentioned the supposed lack (huh ?) of loud noises coming from explosives as if you've completely missed the point about the role of Thermate, and the on-the-record statements by people in the CD industry. In one of your links even NIST concedes a thermate charge would be of low volume.

Regardless of the role that thermate played there were very loud explosions. You said there were no loud noises except in relation to the actual collapses. Quote: "The buildings started falling with but the sound of themselves falling into themselves." Simon, this is simply debunker nonsense.

You asked me to "Watch ANY of the videos of the event and try to demonstrate any explosive sound..."

Well, here are three videos dealing with the explosive sounds for starters:

A more thorough YouTube search for WTC explosions reveals a lot more. In these other videos you will notice that in relation to the Towers, and also the WTC7 demolition, people said they first heard the explosion AND THEN saw the building START to fall (this is demonstrated in one of the vids above). Don't forget, sound takes time to travel through the air, so we are not hearing the explosion as a result of one floor smashing the other. It preceeds it.

The many reports of loud explosions inside the Towers and in WTC7, from survivors, are noteworthy:

I'm sure you would agree that to say there is no credibility to these witness accounts would not be reasonable. You are buying the phony line that the "eyewitnesses" accounts are not even worth considering. Ridiculing these accounts does not make them go away.

You also mention there are no signs of ejected materials yet there ARE the high velocity squibs and the fact that the Tower debris was ejected laterally. Funny how most of the debris ended up outside the footprints when the collapse rates of the Towers should have had everything falling straight down due to gravity. The falling rate was so rapid that little resistance could have been afforded to provide resistance enough to change the trajectory of the debris to such an extent that we saw. The laws of physics obviously don't worry you.

I highly recommend you read some papers on this stuff particularly ones that have dealt with Dr Greening's bankrupt view of these collapses (as I'm sure this would be the source material for any counter claims you might make on this issue). Don't accept what the authority figures have said without thinking about whether what they have said, with regard to the SPECIFIC scientific point, makes sense. No appealing to a wider "view" of the whole senario to simply dismiss the material put forth by the 911 truth advocates. That would not be logical.

In relation to your cavalier brush off of the Thermate analysis, I'll say this: you seem to have no idea as to what I am explaining to you. Have you read or UNDERSTOOD anything about what those other debunker scientists you cite have said ? And no, I have certainly not "ignored" their claims. In fact I dealt with them, but you don't seem to get it.

Disturbingly you choose to brush off the complex argument covering the physical evidence because it doesn't fit the "broader picture."

This is backwards logic at its finest. You would completely discount forensic material on the basis of a misperceived notion that there were no sounds and signs of bombs, that the CD was utterly too difficult an operation to pull off ? Video and physical evidence be damned !

I think from the start you have a priori dismissed any notion of an inside job because it was outside your sphere of believability and have consequently "fitted the facts to suit your policy." (paraphrasing the Downing Street Memos). I think the misleading material provided by the debunkers must have come in very handy.

And yes, I know thermate is typically an incendiary. However, in a refined form it can also be explosive. Making this sort of statement IS naive in this type of debate. Did those authorative debunker scientists tell you that the "truthers" all contend that it was typical thermite ? Despite its type we know Thermate byproducts were found.

Obviously you have not done much research, relying on only the debunker views, and not the counter rebuttals. Also you can't get your facts straight about the most simple issue regarding explosive noises/forces, which I find a bit worrying.

The evidence and arguments you have put forward at this blog have thus far not stood up. You seriously need to go and look at this material more closely. It doesn't seem like you have learnt anything from my previous observations because you continue to make the same "mistakes". The NIST explanations, the debunker thermate video etc are all obviously bankrupt yet you still stand by the material ? Now that is unbelieveable !

This reminds me of a quote, which I'll paraphrase: "You can only fool me a couple of dozen times before I become suspicious..."

You need to get a hold of yourself and admit there ARE big problems with what the debunkers are saying.

Lastly I will say this: I'm EXTREMELY HARDCORE on this issue because we've had wars and death because of it. Exposing 911 provides a chance to really undermine the existing system for the better. This is not a game.

Just don't waste my time unless you have anything constructive to add.

You are not stupid.

Listen, I took some months before I was completely convinced that the official story could not possibly be true, and even then I found it hard to accept.

This is an information war. Not everyone, scientists included, are telling the truth. Get some awareness happening and identify your exisitng biases. Your arguments are NOT logical and the materials with which you have built your case are not substantiated.

Tip: Google some counter rebuttals to the debunker stuff you have seen.

Final note: I'm sure you realised that the last statement you made in your previous comment was a direct appeal to authority. Not good. It's not about the authority, it's about what they are saying !