Nov 302011
Global Research
Dana Gabriel

At the recent APEC meetings, Canada and Mexico announced their interest in joining the U.S., along with other countries already engaged in negotiations to establish what has been referred to as the NAFTA of the Pacific.

The leaders of the nine countries that are part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) met at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Hawaii and agreed on the broad outlines of a free trade agreement. The current members include the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Peru and Chile. The TPP has been hailed as a, “landmark, 21st-century trade agreement, setting a new standard for global trade and incorporating next-generation issues.” Key features of the TPP are that it would provide comprehensive market access and be a fully regional agreement designed to facilitate the development of production and supply chains. Various working groups have been discussing issues such as financial services, government procurement, intellectual property, investment, rules of origin, telecommunications and trade remedies. The next round of talks will take place in December and there are hopes of concluding negotiations before the end of 2012. Apart from Canada and Mexico, Japan has also expressed interest in being part of the TPP. The door is also open for other countries to join which is why many consider it to be a building block for an Asia-Pacific free trade zone.

Following the APEC forum, President Barack Obama held a bilateral meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Originally, it was scheduled to be a North American Leaders Summit, but Mexican President Felipe Calderon could not attend due to the death of Interior Minister Francisco Blake Mora. According to a Readout by the Press Secretary, the leaders look forward to a rescheduled trilateral summit. During his meeting with Prime Minister Harper, President Obama, “noted the important progress being made on the Beyond the Border and Regulatory Cooperation initiatives.” He invited Harper to Washington in early December where an action plan that would work towards a North American security perimeter could finally be released. Both leaders also discussed the announcement by the State Department to seek additional information regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline project. A final ruling on the pipeline which would carry oil from western Canada to the gulf coast of Texas will not be made until after the November 2012 presidential election. The move has prompted Canada to further diversify its trade ties and shift its focus on the Asia-Pacific region.

The decision by Japan to begin consultations with TPP countries, followed by the news that Canada and Mexico are also seeking to join negotiations, has given the trade agreement a real boost. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk welcomed their interest and stated that, “Along with Japan’s similar announcement this week, the desire of these North American nations to consult with TPP partners demonstrates the broadening momentum and dynamism of this ambitious effort toward economic integration across the Pacific.” Minister of International Trade Ed Fast reaffirmed Canada’s commitment to advancing economic interests in the Asia-Pacific region. He acknowledged, “We recognize the TPP as a means to further strengthen those ties and contribute to what promises to become a broadly-based vehicle for economic integration in the region.” The report, Canada, China, and Rising Asia: A Strategic Proposal released in October, recommended joining the TPP as the most efficient way to deepen integration with other Asian economies, providing that the Canadian government reforms the supply management system.
Canada has previously expressed interest in the TPP, but supply management has proven to be stumbling block. The practice which has been in place for decades sets production quotas for dairy, egg and poultry farmers and protects them with import tariffs. In a recent speech, New Zealand Trade Minister Tim Groser raised questions about Canada’s application to join TPP negotiations. He admitted that, “Dairy will be very challenging for Canada. This is a statement of fact. Canada follows a policy that many Governments used to follow but most have moved forward. It is called ‘supply management.’ It is completely inconsistent with tariff elimination.” As far as benchmarks go, Groser confirmed that there are questions that TPP countries will ask when considering new applicants such as whether, “we see clear evidence of a matching commitment to attain a high-quality agreement across all chapters, including the most sensitive matters.” He maintained that, “There is a very strict dress code involved and we are going to be stuffy and old fashioned in enforcing it. When our Leaders said ‘eliminate’ tariffs and other direct barriers to imports, they meant it.” Some have hinted that TPP negotiations could be used to expand NAFTA.

The Harper government maintains that it will promote and defend Canadian interests, but there are concerns that supply management could be used as a bargaining chip to secure a spot in the TPP. In his article, Is Harper putting dairy and poultry protection on the table in trade talks?, Steven Chase reported that, “A former senior Canadian trade official said expanding trade with Asia is not the Harper government’s only reason for joining the Trans-Pacific talks.” He goes on to say that, “John Weekes, Canada’s chief NAFTA negotiator, said Ottawa can’t afford to be left out of talks that appear to be offering signatories a deeper economic relationship with the U.S. than can be found in the North American free-trade agreement.” Weekes is also quoted as saying, “What we’re talking about here – if it really does become what Obama says it will be – is we’re renegotiating NAFTA in the same way we renegotiated the Canada-U.S. FTA.” Another NAFTA-style agreement poses a serious threat to economic sovereignty. There are fears that U.S. could use the TPP to open up the Canadian telecom market and its banking sector to more foreign financial services.

In his article, We’re neglecting our North American neighbors, Robert Pastor described the TPP as a flawed strategy and stressed that the road to completing an agreement would be long. He explained Canada and Mexico’s decision to join the TPP, “as a defensive measure to ensure that they protect what they gained from NAFTA.” He also stated that, “Obama should give priority to forging a seamless market with Canada and Mexico. But for the second time in two years, the North American leaders postponed their summit without setting a new date.” Pastor conceded that, “The three leaders have shown little imagination or even interest in dealing with a continental agenda.” He warned how, “the TPP will divert scarce political capital and attention from North America.” Pastor further emphasized that, “The fastest way to create jobs and double exports is for the three governments to work together on continental plans for transportation, education, and infrastructure.” He also added, “If the TPP’s purpose is to put pressure on China to open its market, that won’t work” and instead suggested that, “A reinvigorated North America is more likely to get China’s attention.”

The article, TPP as a Lynchpin of US Anti-China Strategy by Jane Kelsey sheds more light as to the real agenda behind the proposed trade agreement. She acknowledged that it is part of a, “revival of US geopolitical and strategic influence in the Asian region to counter the ascent of China.

The US aims to isolate and subordinate China in part through constructing a region-wide legal regime that serves the interests of, and is enforceable by, the US and its corporations.” It is interesting to note that many of the current TPP partners, including new prospective members support U.S. foreign policy initiatives. This ties in nicely with the Obama administration’s plans of expanding alliances and military bases in the Asia-Pacific region in an effort to contain China’s rising power.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: Visit his blog at

Nov 292011
How Can People Be So Stupid
Ed Troy

Like many scientists who are convinced that the whole anthropogenic global warming subject is nothing more than a political scam designed to transfer wealth from citizens of the world to governments and selected corporate entities and private individuals, I was overjoyed to see the original Climategate e-mail releases. They clearly showed that the whole thing was nothing more than a contrived invention of the United Nations and various private and corporate interests that conspired to convince the people of the world that living, working, moving about, and producing in the modern age was going to bring about cataclysmic changes to the earth’s ecosystem, thus leading to massive death, disease, migration, and destruction unless trillions of dollars were spent to “save the world”. And, they almost succeeded, largely due to their co-conspirators (knowing or unknowing) in the main stream media and the corporate and political elite, and the total lack of scientific literacy in the vast majority of the world’s population, even in the supposedly educated Western world.

I have written many times about how global warming, later re-branded climate change when the warming stopped in 1998, was a fraud and a scam. (See the bibliography at the end of this article.) The actual measurements simply did not fit the predictions of the computer models. And, the whole scam was based on the computer models and the reported warming since the 1800′s. But, since the mid 1800′s, we have been coming out of the “Little Ice Age“, so warming should have been expected.
Furthermore, it has been warmer in the past. Nobody, today, would give Greenland its name. But, 1000 or so years ago, it was green. And this is not speculation; there are plenty of archeological sites, as well as ice-core and other proxy data, to support the fact that Greenland was much warmer, even in the geologically recent past, let alone what it might have been tens of thousands, millions, or billions of years ago. One of the most often cited explanations for climate change (by skeptics) is the influence of the sun. Of course, the global warmingistas say that is impossible. The sun, they claim, has nothing to do with climate change. (That claim, alone, should start one wondering about their “science”.) I reported in early 2010 how an experiment at CERN was designed to shed light on the theory that the sun, by varying its output slightly and thus modulating the amount of cosmic rays that reached the earth, could explain much of climate change. The global warmingistas did everything they could to stop the funding for the project, but they failed, and the preliminary results were announced a few months ago. The results supported the theory, as reported in Nature Magazine. (More on the online supplement to the Nature article.)

The theory, in its simplest form, was that clouds are formed by nucleation of water droplets on small chemical particles that are formed when cosmic rays strike the earth’s atmosphere. The more cosmic rays, the more water droplet nuclei you have and thus the more clouds you get. The more clouds you get, the more sunlight is reflected back into space and the less sunlight reaches the earth. Both of these processes tend to cool the earth. (Just think about how much cooler you are when a cloud passes overhead and cools your skin. This same effect works on the whole earth.) Although actual levels of solar radiation do not vary greatly from year to year, decade to decade, or century to century (which is the reason the warmists state that the sun could not be the cause of climate change), these small differences in solar radiation do make enough change in the electromagnetic field surrounding the earth that the cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere are changed. And these changes are thought to increase or decrease clouds, thus modulating the temperature of the earth. Much more needs to be done on this theory, but, as I showed in an earlier article, there is tremendous correlation between cosmic rays and temperature, while there is no correlation between temperature and CO2, other than the fact that CO2 goes up after temperature goes up, and it goes down after temperature goes down. (Contrary to the central point of Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” farce.)

But now, Climategate 2.0 has been released. Obviously timed to derail the Durban conference, which was doomed to failure before it started, this new e-mail release goes way beyond the tasty morsels revealed in Climategate 1.0. Personally, I never expected Climategate 2.0. I thought the initial release was all there was. And, I suspect the various guilty parties hoped that it was the end of the story. But, apparently, it was just the shot across the bow. The new e-mails show further collusion and scientific misbehavior (at best) or scientific fraud (more likely). They put to bed the argument that the released e-mails were just “taken out of context”, or misinterpreted, as in “hide the decline”, or “using a trick”.

But, what is even more tantalizing, to me, and probably terrifying to the guilty parties, is the fact that there are many, many more e-mails involved in the release than can currently be read. The FOIA 2001 file that was released contains not only thousands of full-text e-mails beyond what was released in Climategate 1.0, but many thousands of additional e-mails that can only be opened with the proper decryption pass phrase.  As described in an excellent post by thepointman, it looks like “Climategate 2 is a bomb with a dead man’s hand detonator attached to it and it may very well be cluster munition as well.” That is, if anyone tries to kill, discredit, or imprison the leaker, all he or she has to do is have the necessary pass phrase released and all of the Climategate e-mails will become public, including those that almost certainly go to the highest levels of government, politics and industry. It is not unlike the file that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange released with an unknown pass phrase that he would release if harm came to him. That tactic kept harm from coming to him, so far. I suspect it will keep the leaker in the Climategate case safe, too. And, since Climategate involves the conspiracy to extort trillions of dollars from the people of the world, and the continuation of the fraud is necessary to support hundreds of billions of dollars in worthless “research” by corporations and universities, and WikiLeaks only involved the release of mostly embarrassing government screw-ups and intrigue, which all but the most naive people expect, I suspect the stakes are much higher for the leaker of the Climategate e-mails than they are for Julian Assange. It will be interesting  to see what happens next. I suspect many “climate scientists” will be deservedly added to the unemployment rolls.

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

Nov 292011
David Gow

OECD: euro collapse would have ‘highly devastating outcomes’ worldwide

OECD Chief Economist Pier Carlo Padoan
The collapse of the euro could send the world’s advanced economies into a severe recession, dragging emerging markets with them into the mire, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development warned on Monday.

The Paris-based thinktank slashed its forecast for growth among its 34 members from 2.3% half a year ago to 1.6%, with Europe dramatically downgraded from 2% to just 0.2% because of the unresolved sovereign debt crisis.

Pier Carlo Padoan, OECD chief economist, made plain in the body’s latest six-monthly economic outlook that the greatest threat to global economic health comes from the eurozone rather than from the tax-and-spend gridlock in the US Congress.

In his introduction to the report he said: “Recent contagion to countries thought to have relatively solid public finances could massively escalate economic disruption if not addressed.”

In a devastating critique of eurozone leaders’ hesitancy and dilatoriness, he said: “The scenario so far is that Europe’s leaders have been behind the curve. We believe this could be very serious.”

His comments came amidst evidence that the 17 eurozone countries are even wider apart on the measures required to staunch the exit of global investors and prevent a credit crunch on an even worse scale than in 2008-09.

Padoan also made plain that the OECD’s depressed economic forecasts could be downgraded even further if one or more countries default on their sovereign debt and EU leaders fail to agree on solutions to the crisis at their summit on December 8-9.

As IMF managing director Christine Lagarde insisted Italy had made no request for a reported €600bn bailout, Padoan warned that a “black swan” event in the euro area could bring “highly devastating outcomes.”

In a prolonged, deepened recession, unemployment would soar and the US and Japan would see “marked declines in activity” and emerging markets would not be immune as global trade declined.
Noting that contagion is spreading from the weaker periphery of the eurozone to the once-stable core, the OECD is urging European leaders to give the main bailout fund, the EFSF, enough firepower to counter-act the sell-off in debt markets. But plans to boost this to €1tn or more appear to have collapsed.

Padoan said political leaders needed to ensure “smooth financing at reasonable interest rates for sovereigns” in order to block contagion. “This calls for rapid, credible and substantial increases in the capacity of the EFSF together with, or including, greater use of the ECB balance sheet.

“Such forceful policy action, complemented by appropriate governance reform to offset moral hazard, could result in a significant boost to growth in the euro area and the global economy.”

The think tank is demanding a “substantial relaxation of monetary conditions” – code for the ECB to follow the lead of the US Fed and Bank of England by embarking on quantitative easing and substantially increasing its purchases of sovereign bonds.

The OECD also urges that Europe’s banks be well-capitalised, with reports circulating that the European Banking Authority will be forced to raise substantially the estimate of €106.5bn required to meet tough new capital ratio targets.

Germany’s second-largest lender, Commerzbank, alone needs €5bn and could be forced to turn again to Berlin for a bailout. Many analysts believe the debt crisis is now accompanied by a serious and growing banking crisis.

Monday’s report sees OECD area unemployment remaining at 8% in both 2012 and 20913, with inflation down to 1.5% in 2013. Growth in the US rises to 2.5% in 2013 but this assumes a “muddling-through” scenario rather than the more pessimistic prospect of disorderly defaults, systemic bank failures and excessive fiscal tightening.

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services


Nov 292011
Global Research

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The name “Arab Spring” is a catch phrase concocted in distant offices in Washington, London, Paris, and Brussels by individuals and groups who, other than having some superficial knowledge of the region, know very little about the Arabs. What is unfolding amongst the Arab peoples is naturally a mixed package. Insurgency is part of this package as is opportunism. Where there is revolution, there is always counter-revolution.

The upheavals in the Arab World are not an Arab “awakening” either; such a term implies that the Arabs have always been sleeping while dictatorship and injustice has been surrounding them. In reality the Arab World, which is part of the broader Turko-Arabo-Iranic World, has been filled with frequent revolts that have been put down by the Arab dictators in coordination with countries like the United States, Britain, and France. It has been the interference of these powers that has always acted as a counter-balance to democracy and it will continue to do so.

Divide and Conquer: How the First “Arab Spring” was Manipulated

The plans for reconfiguring the Middle East started several years before the First World War. It was during the First World War, however, that the manifestation of these colonial designs could visibly be seen with the “Great Arab Revolt” against the Ottoman Empire.

Despite the fact that the British, French, and Italians were colonial powers which had prevented the Arabs from enjoying any freedom in countries like Algeria, Libya, Egypt, and Sudan, these colonial powers managed to portray themselves as the friends and allies of Arab liberation.

During the “Great Arab Revolt” the British and the French actually used the Arabs as foot soldiers against the Ottomans to further their own geo-political schemes. The secret Sykes–Picot Agreement between London and Paris is a case in point. France and Britain merely managed to use and manipulate the Arabs by selling them the idea of Arab liberation from the so-called “repression” of the Ottomans.
In reality, the Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic empire. It gave local and cultural autonomy to all its peoples, but was manipulated into the direction of becoming a Turkish entity. Even the Armenian Genocide that would ensue in Ottoman Anatolia has to be analyzed in the same context as the contemporary targeting of Christians in Iraq as part of a sectarian scheme unleashed by external actors to divide the Ottoman Empire, Anatolia, and the citizens of the Ottoman Empire.

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, it was London and Paris which denied freedom to the Arabs, while sowing the seeds of discord amongst the Arab peoples. Local corrupt Arab leaders were also partners in the project and many of them were all too happy to become clients of Britain and France. In the same sense, the “Arab Spring” is being manipulated today. The U.S., Britain, France, and others are now working with the help of corrupt Arab leaders and figures to restructure the Arab World and Africa.

The Yinon Plan: Order from Chaos…

The Yinon Plan, which is a continuation of British stratagem in the Middle East, is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

Securing the Realm: Redefining the Arab World…

Although tweaked, the Yinon Plan is in motion and coming to life under the “Clean Break.” This is through a policy document written in 1996 by Richard Perle and the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000” for Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel at the time. Perle was a former Pentagon under-secretary for Ronald Reagan at the time and later a U.S. military advisor to George W. Bush Jr. and the White House. Aside from Perle, the rest of the members of the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000” consisted of James Colbert (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), Charles Fairbanks Jr. (Johns Hopkins University), Douglas Feith (Feith and Zell Associates), Robert Loewenberg (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), Jonathan Torop (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy), David Wurmser (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), and Meyrav Wurmser (Johns Hopkins University). A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm is the full name of this 1996 Israel policy paper.

In many regards, the U.S. is executing the objectives outlined in Tel Aviv’s 1996 policy paper to secure the “realm.” Moreover, the term “realm” implies the strategic mentality of the authors. A realm refers to either the territory ruled by a monarch or the territories that fall under a monarch’s reign, but are not physically under their control and have vassals running them. In this context, the word realm is being used to denote the Middle East as the kingdom of Tel Aviv. The fact that Perle, someone who has essentially been a career Pentagon official, helped author the Israeli paper also makes one ask if the conceptualized sovereign of the realm is either Israel, the United States, or both?

Securing the Realm: The Israeli Blueprints to Destabilize Damascus

The 1996 Israeli document calls for “rolling back Syria” sometime around the year 2000 or afterward by pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon and destabilizing the Syrian Arab Republic with the help of Jordan and Turkey. This has respectively taken place in 2005 and 2011. The 1996 document states: “Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.” [1]

As a first step towards creating an Israeli-dominated “New Middle East” and encircling Syria, the 1996 document calls for removing President Saddam Hussein from power in Baghdad and even alludes to the balkanization of Iraq and forging a strategic regional alliance against Damascus that includes a Sunni Muslim “Central Iraq.” The authors write: “But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the ‘natural axis’ with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria’s territorial integrity.” [2]

Perle and the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000” also call for driving the Syrians out of Lebanon and destabilizing Syria by using Lebanese opposition figures. The document states: “[Israel must divert] Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.” [3] This is what would happen in 2005 after the Hariri Assassination that helped launch the so-called “Cedar Revolution” and create the vehemently anti-Syrian March 14 Alliance controlled by the corrupt Said Hariri.

The document also calls for Tel Aviv to “take [the] opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime.” [4] This clearly falls into the Israeli strategy of demonizing its opponents through using public relations (PR) campaigns. In 2009, Israeli news media openly admitted that Tel Aviv through its embassies and diplomatic missions had launched a global campaign to discredit the Iranian presidential elections before they even took place through a media campaign and organizing protests in front of Iranian embassies. [5]

The document also mentions something that resembles what is currently going on in Syria. It states: “Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.” [6] With the 2011 upheaval in Syria, the movement of insurgents and the smuggling of weapons through the Jordanian and Turkish borders has become a major problem for Damascus.

In this context, it is no surprise that Arial Sharon and Israel told Washington to attack Syria, Libya, and Iran after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. [7] Finally, it is worth knowing that the Israeli document also advocated for pre-emptive war to shape Israel’s geo-strategic environment and to carve out the “New Middle East.” [8] This is a policy that the U.S. would also adopt in 2001.

The Eradication of the Christian Communities of the Middle East

It is no coincidence that Egyptian Christians were attacked at the same time as the South Sudan Referendum and before the crisis in Libya. Nor is it a coincidence that Iraqi Christians, one of the world’s oldest Christian communities, have been forced into exile, leaving their ancestral homelands in Iraq. Coinciding with the exodus of Iraqi Christians, which occurred under the watchful eyes of U.S. and British military forces, the neighbourhoods in Baghdad became sectarian as Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims were forced by violence and death squads to form sectarian enclaves. This is all tied to the Yinon Plan and the reconfiguration of the region as part of a broader objective.

In Iran, the Israelis have been trying in vain to get the Iranian Jewish community to leave. Iran’s Jewish population is actually the second largest in the Middle East and arguably the oldest undisturbed Jewish community in the world. Iranian Jews view themselves as Iranians who are tied to Iran as their homeland, just like Muslim and Christian Iranians, and for them the concept that they need to relocate to Israel because they are Jewish is ridiculous.

In Lebanon, Israel has been working to exacerbate sectarian tensions between the various Christian and Muslim factions as well as the Druze. Lebanon is a springboard into Syria and the division of Lebanon into several states is also seen as a means for balkanizing Syria into several smaller sectarian Arab states. The objectives of the Yinon Plan are to divide Lebanon and Syria into several states on the basis of religious and sectarian identities for Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians, and the Druze. There could also be objectives for a Christian exodus in Syria too.

The new head of the Maronite Catholic Syriac Church of Antioch, the largest of the autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches, has expressed his fears about a purging of Arab Christians in the Levant and Middle East. Patriarch Mar Beshara Boutros Al-Rahi and many other Christian leaders in Lebanon and Syria are afraid of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Syria. Like Iraq, mysterious groups are now attacking the Christian communities in Syria. The leaders of the Christian Eastern Orthodox Church, including the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, have also all publicly expressed their grave concerns. Aside from the Christian Arabs, these fears are also shared by the Assyrian and Armenian communities, which are mostly Christian.

Sheikh Al-Rahi was recently in Paris where he met President Nicolas Sarkozy. It is reported that the Maronite Patriarch and Sarkozy had disagreements about Syria, which prompted Sarkozy to say that the Syrian regime will collapse. Patriarch Al-Rahi’s position was that Syria should be left alone and allowed to reform. The Maronite Patriarch also told Sarkozy that Israel needed to be dealt with as a threat if France legitimately wanted Hezbollah to disarm.

Because of his position in France, Al-Rahi was instantly thanked by the Christian and Muslim religious leaders of the Syrian Arab Republic who visited him in Lebanon. Hezbollah and its political allies in Lebanon, which includes most the Christian parliamentarians in the Lebanese Parliament, also lauded the Maronite Patriarch who later went on a tour to South Lebanon.

Sheikh Al-Rahi is now being politically attacked by the Hariri-led March 14 Alliance, because of his stance on Hezbollah and his refusal to support the toppling of the Syrian regime. A conference of Christian figures is actually being planned by Hariri to oppose Patriarch Al-Rahi and the stance of the Maronite Church. Since Al-Rahi announced his position, the Tahrir Party, which is active in both Lebanon and Syria, has also started targeting him with criticism. It has also been reported that high-ranking U.S. officials have also cancelled their meetings with the Maronite Patriarch as a sign of their displeasure about his positions on Hezbollah and Syria.

The Hariri-led March 14 Alliance in Lebanon, which has always been a popular minority (even when it was a parliamentary majority), has been working hand-in-hand with the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the groups using violence and terrorism in Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood and other so-called Salafist groups from Syria have been coordinating and holding secret talks with Hariri and the Christian political parties in the March 14 Alliance. This is why Hariri and his allies have turned on Cardinal Al-Rahi. It was also Hariri and the March 14 Alliance that brought Fatah Al-Islam into Lebanon and have now helped some of its members escape to go and fight in Syria.

There are unknown snippers who are targeting Syrian civilians and the Syrian Army with a view of causing chaos and internal fighting. The Christian communities in Syria are also being targeted by unknown groups. It is very likely that the attackers are a coalition of U.S., French, Jordanian, Israeli, Turkish, Saudi, and Khalij (Gulf) Arab forces working with some Syrians on the inside.

A Christian exodus is being planned for the Middle East by Washington, Tel Aviv, and Brussels. It has been reported that Sheikh Al-Rahi was told in Paris by President Nicolas Sarkozy that the Christian communities of the Levant and Middle East can resettle in the European Union. This is no gracious offer. It is a slap in the face by the same powers that have deliberately created the conditions to eradicate the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East. The aim appears to be either the resettling of the Christian communities outside of the region or demarcate them into enclaves. Both could be objectives.

This project is meant to delineate the Arab nations along the lines of being exclusively Muslim nations and falls into accordance with both the Yinon Plan and the geo-political objectives of the U.S. to control Eurasia. A major war may be its outcome. Arab Christians now have a lot in common with black-skinned Arabs.

Re-Dividing Africa: The Yinon Plan is very Much Alive and at Work…

In regards to Africa, Tel Aviv sees securing Africa as part of its broader periphery. This broader or so-called “new periphery” became a basis of geo-strategy for Tel Aviv after 1979 when the “old periphery” against the Arabs that included Iran, which was one of Israel’s closest allies during the Pahlavi period, buckled and collapsed with the 1979 Iranian Revolution. In this context, Israel’s “new periphery” was conceptualized with the inclusion of countries like Ethiopia, Uganda, and Kenya against the Arab states and the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is why Israel has been so deeply involved in the balkanization of Sudan.

In the same context as the sectarian divisions in the Middle East, the Israelis have outlined plans to reconfigure Africa. The Yinon Plan seeks to delineate Africa on the basis of three facets: (1) ethno-linguistics; (2) skin-colour; and, finally, (3) religion. To secure the realm, it also so happens that the the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), the Israeli think-tank that included Perle, also pushed for the creating of the Pentagon’s U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).

An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway. It seeks to draw dividing lines in Africa between a so-called “Black Africa” and a supposedly “non-Black” North Africa. This is part of a scheme to create a schism in Africa between what are assumed to be “Arabs” and so-called “Blacks.”

This objective is why the ridiculous identity of an “African South Sudan” and an “Arab North Sudan” have been nurtured and promoted. This is also why black-skinned Libyans have been targeted in a campaign to “colour cleanse” Libya. The Arab identity in North Africa is being de-linked from its African identity. Simultaneously there is an attempt to eradicate the large populations of “black-skinned Arabs” so that there is a clear delineation between “Black Africa” and a new “non-Black” North Africa, which will be turned into a fighting ground between the remaining “non-Black” Berbers and Arabs.

In the same context, tensions are being fomented between Muslims and Christians in Africa, in such places as Sudan and Nigeria, to further create lines and fracture points. The fuelling of these divisions on the basis of skin-colour, religion, ethnicity, and language is intended to fuel disassociation and disunity in Africa. This is all part of a broader African strategy of cutting North Africa off from the rest of the African continent.

Preparing the Chessboard for the “Clash of Civilizations”

It is at this point that all the pieces have to be put together and the dots have to be connected.

The chessboard is being staged for a “Clash of Civilizations” and all the chess pieces are being put into place.  The Arab World is in the process of being cordoned off and sharp delineation lines are being created. These lines of delineation are replacing the seamless lines of transition between different ethno-linguistic, skin-colour, and religious groups.

Under this scheme, there can no longer be a melding transition between societies and countries. This is why the Christians in the Middle East and North Africa, such as the Copts, are being targeted. This is also why black-skinned Arabs and black-skinned Berbers, as well as other North African population groups which are black-skinned, are facing genocide in North Africa.

After Iraq and Egypt, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Syrian Arab Republic are both important points of regional destabilization in North Africa and Southeast Asia respectively. What happens in Libya will have rippling effects on Africa, as what happens in Syria will have rippling effects on Southeast Asia and beyond. Both Iraq and Egypt, in connection with what the Yinon Plan states, have acted as primers for the destabilization of both these Arab states.

What is being staged is the creation of an exclusively “Muslim Middle East” area (excluding Israel) that will be in turmoil over Shiite-Sunni fighting. A similar scenario is being staged for a “non-Black North Africa” area which will be characterized by a confrontation between Arabs and Berber. At the same time, under the “Clash of Civilizations” model, the Middle East and North Africa are slated to simultaneously be in conflict with the so-called “West” and “Black Africa.”

This is why both Nicolas Sarzoky, in France, and David Cameron, in Britain, made back-to-back declarations during the start of the conflict in Libya that multiculturalism is dead in their respective Western European societies. [9] Real multiculturalism threatens the legitimacy of the NATO war agenda. It also constitutes an obstacle to the implementation of the “Clash of Civilizations” which constitutes the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.

In this regard, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor, explains why multiculturalism is a threat to Washington and its allies: “[A]s America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues [e.g., war with the Arab World, China, Iran, or Russia and the former Soviet Union], except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War [and exists now because of the ‘Global War on Terror’].” [10] Brzezinski’s next sentence is the qualifier of why populations would oppose or support wars: “[The consensus] was rooted, however, not only in deeply shared democratic values, which the public sensed were being threatened, but also in a cultural and ethnic affinity for the predominantly European victims of hostile totalitarianisms.” [11]

Risking being redundant, it has to be mentioned again that it is precisely with the intention of breaking these cultural affinities between the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region and the so-called “Western World” and sub-Saharan Africa that Christians and black-skinned peoples are being targeted.

Ethnocentrism and Ideology: Justifying Today’s “Just Wars”

In the past, the colonial powers of Western Europe would indoctrinate their people. Their objective was to acquire popular support for colonial conquest. This took the form of spreading Christianity and promoting Christian values with the support of armed merchants and colonial armies.

At the same time, racist ideologies were put forth. The people whose lands were colonized were portrayed as “sub-human,” inferior, or soulless. Finally, the “White Man’s burden” of taking on a mission of civilizing the so-called “uncivilized peoples of the world” was used. This cohesive ideological framework was used to portray colonialism as a “just cause.” The latter in turn was used to provide legitimacy to the waging of “just wars” as a means to conquering and “civilizing” foreign lands.

Today, the imperialist designs of the United States, Britain, France, and Germany have not changed. What has changed is the pretext and justification for waging their neo-colonial wars of conquest. During the colonial period, the narratives and justifications for waging war were accepted by public opinion in the colonizing countries, such as Britain and France. Today’s “just wars” and “just causes” are now being conducted under the banners of women’s rights, human rights, humanitarianism, and democracy.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an award-winning writer from Ottawa, Canada. He is a Sociologist and Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He was a witness to the “Arab Spring” in action in North Africa. While on the ground in Libya during the NATO bombing campaign he was Special Correspondent for the syndicated investigative KPFA program Flashpoints, which is aired from Berkeley, California.


[1] Richard Perle et al., A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (Washington, D.C. and Tel Aviv: Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), 1996.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Barak Ravid, “Israeli diplomats told to take offensive in PR war against Iran,” Haaretz, June 1, 2009.
[6] Perle et al., Clean Break, op. cit.
[7] Aluf Benn, “Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria,” Haaretz, September 30, 2009.
[8] Richard Perle et al., Clean Break, op. cit.
[9] Robert Marquand,”Why Europe is turning away from multiculturalism,” Christian Science Monitor, March 4, 2011.
[10] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books October 1997), p.211
[11] Ibid.

Nov 292011
Richard Falk

            I could not begin to count the number of times friends, and adversaries, have give me the following general line of advice: your views on Israel/Palestine would gain a much wider hearing if they showed more sympathy for Israel’s position and concerns, that is, if they were more ‘balanced.’ Especially on this set of issues, I have always found such advice wildly off the mark for two main reasons.

            First, if the concern is balance, I am not the place to begin, but the absurd pro-Israeli balance that pervades the response to the conflict in Washington, in the Congress, at the White House and State Department, among Beltway think tanks, as well as in the mainstream media. There is a serious problem of balance, or I would say distortion, that undermines diplomatic credibility. Such a toxic imbalance here in the United States makes the American claim to mediate the conflict and provide neutral auspices futile, if not ridiculous, or at best a reliance on geopolitical ‘justice’ in place of legal justice (based on rights). When the Goldstone Report is rejected before it has been read or the World Court’s near unanimous Advisory Opinion (14-1) condemning as unlawful the separation wall constructed in occupied Palestinian territory is repudiated without offering a serious critical argument, it is clear that bias controls reason, making the resulting imbalance a willing partner in crime.

            But what of the imbalance that sides with the evidence, with the law, with the ‘facts on the ground’ to arrive at its findings and conclusions? What of the continuous expansion of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the denial of Palestinian refugee rights of return, of the apartheid legal structure of occupation, of discrimination against the Palestinian minority living as Israeli citizens, of the appropriation of scarce Palestinian water reserves, of the abuse of prisoners and children, of the long siege imposed on the people of Gaza as a sustained collective punishment? What of the continuous defiance of international law by Israeli reliance on excessive and disproportionate uses of force in the name of security? In light of this record, is not such imbalance, particularly in the inflamed American atmosphere, the only possible way for truth to speak to power?  Or stated more strongly, is not a circumstance of imbalance written into the fabric of the conflict, and exhibited in the daily suffering and thralldom of the Palestinian people whether living under occupation, in refugee camps in neighboring countries, in exile, and as a subjugated minority?

             Finally, the idea of balance and symmetry should also ‘see’ the structures of life that describe the contrasting conditions of the two peoples: Israelis living in conditions of near normalcy, Palestinians enduring for an incredible period that stretches over six decades a variety of daily hardships and abuses that is cumulatively experiences as acute human insecurity. To be structurally blindfolded and blind is to adopt a common, yet deforming, appearance of ‘balance’ that perpetuates an unjust ‘imbalance’ between oppressor and oppressed.

             In relation to self-determination for Palestinians and Israelis I favor a stance of ‘constructive imbalance,’ which I believe is the only truthful manner of depicting this reality. Truth and accuracy is my litmus test of objectivity, and as such, knowingly defies that sinister god who encourages the substitution of balance for truth!

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

Nov 292011
J.T. Waldron

While I lack the meticulous, accurate recollections that Jeffrey Strahl wielded while taking down the avid 9/11 apologists of “Screw Loose Change’,  I did discover that Portland 9/11Truth’s Meetup moderator might as well be working for Homeland Security.  

Some peripheral exchanges might be missing from this discussion. Once observing member Brad’s removal from the email forum, curiosity took over.  Would this Meetup leader ban people for arguing on behalf of the best science behind 9/11 truth?  If you have the intestinal fortitude to sit through another inane thread, watch what happens in the name of “keeping the conversation civil”. 

Meetup Group:  Portland 9/11 Truth (Note:  This is not the other 9/11 truth group called “Portland 9/11 Truth Alliance” which has its leaders putting forth the notion that no planes hit the Twin Towers)

Meetup Moderator:  Michael Sullivan (Referred to as Michael)

On Sep 10, 2011, at 1:14 PM, Michael wrote:

I won’t be able to make this one. Jim Fetzer lecture yesterday was great. More and more it looks like super weapons like direct energy technology! Nano-thermite is bogus and meant to misdirect us based on science and burn points. Just something to stay open to. We don’t need to spend so much time on proving what it really was to the unawakened masses, as much as proving the “official” 9/11 commission fable as false. This will inspire THINKING! Something that we all recognize is missing from our society to some degree.

I do feel like we are winning though! More and more, people are seeing what’s happening and know that its just not right. To Obama (Sateoro) what ever his real name is, thanks for being a con and deceiver, it has helped to wake up even more people.

I encourage you all to buy merchandise: bumper sticker, shirts, etc… Buy some car window paint and paint something like I have, “youtube: Dancing Israeli’s”. These things reach people!
Enjoy your weekend!


From: “J.T. Waldron”
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 18:08:15 -0400
To: ReplyTo:
Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: Clyde Lewis 911 Event


Was nanothermite/thermate found in various dust samples from different sources?  Was it not analyzed as such?

Does that not constitute evidence of the use of thermate as one of the explosive materials?

Seems to me like there is an attempt to remove attention from what is provable back to what is not provable.

The excuse for this diversion?  “We must keep an open mind”.  Hmmm.

Suspiciously Yours,

J.T. Waldron>>
On Sep 10, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Michael wrote:

Nope. No intentions to divert anyone. Research and go with what ever theories you want. There’s different theories and info for whatever hypothesis. Was just basing it off of the speaker and scholars for 9/11 Truth founder’s research who has confronted those who claim it was nano-thermite such as Steven Jones, with the evidence to discredit the nano-thermite theory and it seems there was less than a willing discussion on their part.

Either way, say it was this theory or that… Where are we? We may never agree on that, but we can all agree that we were/are being lied to about what happened on 9/11 and we all need to stay united to fight against that.

I was just making the point that since none of us know what REALLY happened in the demolition of the towers, the pentagon, and Pennsylvania, we DO know what didn’t happen and that we are being lied to.

In my personal opinion, the best method for waking others up is to just get them to start asking questions for themselves. They’ll ask you, “well, what really happened?” And you’ll say nano-thermite, they’ll come back and say here’s evidence that nano-thermite does not heat up, this or that, impossible… Then you’re discredited and so is the Truth movement. Therefore, sticking w things that are obvious lies is more beneficial to our cause in waking people up to lies.

And I’m sure nano-thermite particles were found there but so was airplane wreckage at the Pentagon, could be planted to misdirect from the real weapons/demolition equipment, don’t you think? Don’t discount directed energy, outer space laser type equipment. There’s stuff we don’t even know about out there.

Suspicious of the government and your friend in Truth, Justice, and Peace,

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

From: “J.T. Waldron”
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 19:57:56 -0400
To: ReplyTo:
Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: Clyde Lewis 911 Event

They can say “there’s evidence that nano-thermite does not heat up”  but they don’t have the evidence.

Conversely, all the evidence you need to underly the destructive nature of the explosive materials actually found in the dust was just presented in Toronto by David Chandler and Jon Cole hours ago.

The strongest hand to play is the one with actual evidence.  Your “strawman argument”, which you are implying as the nano-thermite discovery, is the most difficult one for the establishment to refute.

Other cards brought in merely for the sake of argument are aimed at diverting attention from the details backed by actual evidence.

If it wasn’t so sad, I’d almost get a chuckle from the idea of people actually bantering about the notion that “nanothermate is bogus”.

Who needs COINTELPRO when you got so many willing to facilitate diversionary tactics?

Concerning the chain of custody of the WTC dust, I’ve seen no credible accounts that undermine the authenticity of the dust samples.  The establishment has made no progress refuting the chain of custody of the dust samples.  I suppose one could assume that it’s in the name of rigorous science that such scrutiny is practiced while carrying water for Judy Woods and James Fetzer.  Seems to me a bit naive to assume it’s out of some sort of scientific discipline.

I have no problem entertaining ideas that pass the initial smell test, but I also believe focus can be a friend.


On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Michael  wrote:
Like I said, we could debate it all day but where are we JT? We were lied to and us uncovering the tools used to pull it off is important but I see so many get caught up in it and start calling others out to be COINTELPRO and other derragatory

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:51 AM, BRAD wrote:

I hate to but in here after missing the lecture but space lasers and directed energy weapons cutting the core columns  at 45% angles into 30 foot lengths? come on brother. I know how cointell works and judy wood is for sure cointell. And a complete pathetic witch. Anyone with a high school education promoting space beams is an obvious narc. watch judy wood unscripted and tell me who the liar from Blacksburg VA is. It is really worth watching all three parts. without a script these demons fall apart.  It is so illogical basically every arguement that they make.  Remember how video fakery jumps into no planes? how are those two related? go read some of the cointell sites and notice the patterns. they attack fetzer for his no 757 at the pentagon theory where he is telling the truth but they fail to mention anything about the ridiculous space beams and directed energy theories he gets paid to promote. the attempt is to divide the movement into different camps all having some factual and much disinformation. Nanothermite is provable and was used to cut the columns. Obviously additional explosives were used before,during and to initialize the collapse any cursory viewing of the collapse demonstrates that.
Michael I don’t thing you can debate it all day, in fact I don’t thing space beams can be debated at all with the laws of physics intact. It is a diversionary tactic nothing more.  I am curious who decided to have James Fetzer come and speak anyway?>>
From: brad
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 11:56 AM

Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: Clyde Lewis 911 Event

In response to Joel’s suggestion, scalar weapons do exsist but they dont pick and choose what to effect and what not to. They do not account for precision 45% cuts in the columns at 30 ft. lengths. The “renovations for two weeks before the attacks do however account for that along with the nanothermite that was used on the columns. -b

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Joel  wrote:

I think there are very few people, including myself, who understand the physics of scalar/energy beam weaponry. Most people need experts who can adequately explain all this (jargon). Take a look at the other side of the interview between Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Greg Jenkins:

It’s not that she’s a witch, is it? I don’t think so. What kind of witch and in what respects–and how is being a “witch” even relevant? She’s more of a scientist, especially in this context than a witch. I doubt she’s even a witch.

From: brad
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: Clyde Lewis 911 Event

how is taking bits of an interview and adding a dialouge to skew it into something that it wasn’t “the other side of the interview” as opposed to an unedited one where the viewer himself can judge the mood of the interview?  What scientific or factual evidence do you have that there was scalar weapons used? how did the scalar weapons project into the core of the building and cut the columns at 45% angles without damaging the outside of the building or the steel next to the cuts? Sure godzilla could have cut a deal with papa smurf to have aliens assist him in destroying the twin towers but why grasp at some stupid hypotheticals when there is actual evidence in front of your face unless you are a fed trying to distract people from reality or a total dupe?

From: Joel
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:21:26 -0400
To: ReplyTo:
Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: Clyde Lewis 911 Event

Here’s the evidence:;read=93433

From: brad
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: Clyde Lewis 911 Event

Are you for real?

    From:     joel
    Subject:     Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: Clyde Lewis 911 Event
    Date:     September 19, 2011 1:47:46 PM PDT

I’m a physical person aware of a soul, not a computer-generated/artificial intelligence machine, slave. What are you?

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Michael wrote:
In regards to what?
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

From: brad moss To:
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: Clyde Lewis 911 Event

Sorry Michael i meant that towards the blog that joel linked to as “the evidence.”  I am not trying to argue or bicker or call names or accuse people of being disingenuous, I genuinely wonder if you guys are playing games with me? You tell me that this meetup is not about reptoids and flying saucers but the blog Joel suggested as evidence was simply someone providing hearsay endorsements of known operatives who blame 911 on israel and are deeply involved with the ufo cult. Well its not a cult it is more like chinese theatre done worse. The disclosure project and all of that are military intelligence operatives. Its religion for people who don’t believe in religion. And Morgan Reynolds? That guy was a known sheister way back when i used to actually follow 911 truth and that was many years ago. All of that stuff is obvious disinfo to even moderately retarded people. I just joined and I’m wondering if this is some type of hazing the new guy or is this the general dialogue of portland 911 truth? When I said a while back that anyone promoting those theories was a fed I was refering to the people on you tube and presenting at symposiums not any of you who I haven’t met and happen to have fallen for this stuff. Having a dialogue about it is the only way to let someone know they have been conned. I don’t see it as infighting. I just don’t see how hearsay rumors of secret unprovable isreali weapons is evidence or how it should share the stage with the new film from AE 911 truth
9/11: Explosive Evidence — Experts Speak Out  

If you really want to do something about 911 then get a copy of that film, make copies, pick neighborhoods and put one on every door. that’s what I’m going to do here. I haven’t seen the film yet I have only heard the audio but not many people will be able to watch it and ignore the arguments presented.  No need to even worry about the Israelis.

From: J.T. Waldron
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: Clyde Lewis 911 Event

One of the most important advances of the 9/11 Truth movement was the break between James Fetzer and Steven Jones.

In the Fall of 2006, Fetzer spoke at the Rialto Theatre in Tucson.  While a good chunk of the lecture was devoted to the solid stuff, he started slipping in the Judy Wood’s “exotic weaponry” argument.  He was representing Scholars for 9/11 Truth at this time and Steven Jones was a co-founder.  Somebody inside the audience recorded footage of the lecture and uploaded it to Youtube.  Due to the weak scientific basis for exotic weaponry, Steven Jones responded immediately by withdrawing his participation in “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” and formed his own organization, “Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice”.

This was one of the most significant advances for the science involving 9/11 Truth.  What emerged from “Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice” is research that is far more credible than what existed prior to this event in 2006.  Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth began to grow an lend their expertise to this subject as well.  Now we have a peer-reviewed study of explosives found in the dust particles and a clearer picture of how these materials contributed to the destruction of the buildings.

Not without a fight, of course.  Fetzer has become so desperate over the rejection of the exotic weapons argument by other scientists, engineers and architects, he is now reduced to pushing the “no planes hit the towers” theory.

To help marginalize the 9/11 Truth movement, it’s important for the least credible science to occupy the stage with the best evidence.

Why?  Emphasis on the precise evidence for the demolitions of WTC I, II and 7 is the most dangerous threat to the establishment.   It has NIST lying and every politician using Popular Mechanics and the 9/11 Commission report as their excuse for willful ignorance.  It has the Royal Institute of British Architects screaming “anti-Semitism” when Architect Richard Gage makes no mention of Judaism in his presentation.  It turns adults into crying wee babies and it leaves proponents of the official story with no where to go.

If bickering is setting light to those who would turn this sword of truth into a dull butter knife, so be it.  We are now much better off for the similar shake-out that occurred in 2006.


From: Michael
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: 911 Event

Houston members, please read below and comment if you’d like. Thx for the info JT. Perhaps using the word “bicker” was not appropriate. I should have said, we can debate, come up w facts about the demolitions but still, where will we be? We’ll all still be on this side of their evil agenda. I’d like to unite and come up with ways in how we’ll destroy their agenda. And for some reason, I can’t figure out how this “how it happened” conversation is really going to get us to our common goal. Yes, we need the facts, why don’t we all unite and figure out how we are going to get those facts/documents out of the pentagon ourselves! With the evidence in hand!
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Tim Harless  wrote:
Hey Mike, Has anyone looked at this???Tim Harless

Subject: FW: What Does This Word Mean?Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 06:53:48 -0700
If all this is true, we are all in a world of hurt.

     Snopes; mixed  message.
  It seems very important to  pursue the exact definition of this word, which is  employed  in the controversial health care bill on page 107, but not  easily found in any English or American  dictionaries.
     Dhimmitude —  What does  it  mean?

                Obama  used it in the health care bill. 

Now  isn’t this interesting? It is used in the health  care  law.

Dhimmitude — I  had never heard the word until now.  Type  it into Google and start reading.  Pretty  interesting. It’s on page 107 of the healthcare  bill.  I looked this up on Google and yep,  it exists..  It is a REAL word. 

Word of the Day:  Dhimmitude

Dhimmitude is the  Muslim system of controlling  non-Muslim populations conquered  through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of  non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their  presence AND as a coercive means of converting  conquered remnants to Islam. 

ObamaCare allows the  establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim  diktat in the United States .   Muslims  are specifically exempted from the government  mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the  penalty tax for being uninsured.  Islam  considers insurance to be “gambling”,  “risk-taking”, and “usury” and is thus banned.  Muslims are specifically granted exemption based  on this.

How  convenient.  So I, as a Christian, will  have crippling IRS liens placed against all of  my assets, including real estate, cattle, and  even accounts receivables, and will face hard  prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or  pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan  will have no such penalty and will have 100% of  his health needs paid for by the de facto  government insurance.  Non-Muslims will be  paying a tax to subsidize Muslims.    This is  Dhimmitude.

I  recommend sending this onto your  contacts.   American citizens need to  know about it — 

From: brad>>>
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] word truth

here is the text of page 107:

H. R. 3590—107
COST-SHARING.—In the case of an enrollee with respect to whom
a premium tax credit or reduced cost-sharing under section
36B of such Code or section 1402 is being claimed, the following
SIZE.—The information described in section 6103(l)(21) for
the taxable year ending with or within the second calendar
year preceding the calendar year in which the plan year
described in section 1412(b)(2), including information with
respect to individuals who were not required to file an
income tax return for the taxable year described in
subparagraph (A) or individuals who experienced changes
in marital status or family size or significant reductions
in income.
enrollee with respect to whom eligibility for a premium tax
credit under section 36B of such Code or cost-sharing reduction
under section 1402 is being established on the basis that the
enrollee’s (or related individual’s) employer is not treated under
section 36B(c)(2)(C) of such Code as providing minimum essential
coverage or affordable minimum essential coverage, the
following information:
(A) The name, address, and employer identification
number (if available) of the employer.
(B) Whether the enrollee or individual is a full-time
employee and whether the employer provides such minimum
essential coverage.
(C) If the employer provides such minimum essential
coverage, the lowest cost option for the enrollee’s or individual’s
enrollment status and the enrollee’s or individual’s
required contribution (within the meaning of section
5000A(e)(1)(B) of such Code) under the employer-sponsored
(D) If an enrollee claims an employer’s minimum essential
coverage is unaffordable, the information described
in paragraph (3).
If an enrollee changes employment or obtains additional
employment while enrolled in a qualified health plan for which
such credit or reduction is allowed, the enrollee shall notify
the Exchange of such change or additional employment and
provide the information described in this paragraph with
respect to the new employer.
In the case of an individual who is seeking an exemption
certificate under section 1311(d)(4)(H) from any requirement
or penalty imposed by section 5000A, the following
(A) In the case of an individual seeking exemption
based on the individual’s status as a member of an exempt
religious sect or division, as a member of a health care
sharing ministry, as an Indian, or as an individual eligible
for a hardship exemption, such information as the Secretary
shall prescribe.

Where does It say anything about Dhimmitude?

From: Michael

Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] word truth
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:19:20 -0400

Tim, please reply to Brad’s question when you have a sec. Where is that word, Dhimmitude?

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Tim wrote:

Jimmini:) where do people dream up this misinformation?????what a waste of energy and time:(

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:22 AM, BRAD wrote:
they want to keep people occupied…

On Sep 19, 2011, at 10:25 AM, brad wrote:
I joined the republican party(forgive me) in 07 to promote ron paul, so I get sent stuff like this all the time.

:   joel
    Subject:     Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: Clyde Lewis 911 Event
    Date:     September 19, 2011 1:36:50 PM PDT

It shows how deep the conspiracy is–how obvious truth can be confounded by problem-reaction-solution, turning something that could easily wake up the masses into just another distraction and energy-waster. People don’t need 9/11 to wake up to the conspiracy right in front of your eyes every time you open your eyes.

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Joel wrote:
It’s pretty naive to think Ron Paul is not an insider:

He’s just another puppet. Assuming people actually elected Ron Paul, do you think The Fed would actually be abolished without some other type of similar control being placed on the people? It wouldn’t be. Maybe it would be publicized that it would, but you have to go to one of the sources–the Rothschilds. You have to take them down. A name change doesn’t change the underlying issue. It’s like replacing Bank of America with Wells Fargo. It’s also like bringing in a “conservative” to combat a “liberal” who can also say he can create lots of jobs but repeat lies and not bring out the truth of 9/11 and other things.

From: brad
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:28 PM

Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] word truth

Nice Joel, do you have any discernment at all? Every link you post it to some obvious disinfo site. Alex jones a vatican agent? ted gunderson and john decamp agents? conspiracy of silence fake? Ron paul an insider? where have you been the last four years? I know how insiders are treated and that is not ron paul. they are scared of ron paul and alex jones. I have plenty of complaints about alex jones but being a fed is not one of them. money grubbing?yep. lying about good deals from midas?yep. people on his show for money?yep. a fed? no. he has woken up more people than anyone on the planet. does he spend most of his show talking about himself yes. he has some shortcomings but the impact he has had on the planet is second to none.

and ron paul i have some reservations about on some subjects but promoting him is bad according to joel? wow! what should we do run around talking about space beams and reptillians? is that the solution? Is there any bullshit on the web that you haven’t fallen for? why do you even believe that 911 was an inside job? oh wait you don’t. you believe it was an attack by jews!  lets see what is more supicious three mossad agents filming the demolition after isreal warned the us government before 911 that there was going to be an attack or the irs,cia,sec, office of emergency management all blown up in wtc 7, a missile or whatever killing the auditors at the pentagon, cheney ordering the stand down(with the us military changing its protocol for him to do so) 55 different 911 related drills in the previous two years before 911, the air force blowing up the plane in shanksville, and various us agencys covering up the whole thing for the last 10 years but it was all done by Israel dammit!! YOU FUCKING JEWS!!!! AAAGH!  you must be a troll bradly you aren’t blaming everything on the fucking jews!

What are you doing to take down the Rothschilds? I’m very curious..

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Joel wrote:
You’re being ignorant of Israel, still.

From: brad To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: Clyde Lewis 911 Event

I would take the pepsi challenge on Israel any day of the week. I’m sorry but I wont click on a mike rivero link. I forced myself to listen to him for a couple years even after he was pushing obama, giving him the benefit of the doubt thinking he might be playing a role to speak truth to some leftys but no I believe now that he was playing a role as an agent. Now he says chemtrails are used for nothing more than military communication and will hang up on you if you try to talk about anything but hating jews.  Apparently he knows all of the uses for nanoaluminum and depopulation is not one of them. I think russel blaylock would disagree. All the agents talk about is israel and almost every “ex-cia” agent had to push obama no matter the risk of exposure it seemed.  that is a pretty blanket statement and i’m sure there are many exceptions but that is the way I perceived it at the time.  Israel was created by the anglo oligarchy. It exists only because they own it, have use for it and plans for it. Do you think that operations like converse infosystems exist because of Israeli hegemony or because they play a spying role in collaboration with the, no rather in delegation from the us/british intelligence agencys? I’m not ignorant of Israel, I don’t like Israel and when travelling I could even say there were a fair amount of Israelis that I didn’t care for a whole lot,although some of them were really cool.  I wouldnt say israel is above attacking the us but if it did so it would be on behest of the “rouge network” not because of some super weapon was shouldered by an eight foot Israelite. As far as I know thr uss liberty was an attack carried out by LBJ at the behest of ? whoever shot kennedy I guess. whoever wanted war w/Egypt. I understand that there are a lot of zionists and dual citizens in government but lets not attribute more power to them than they have.

From: Joel
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] word truth
I agree Alex Jones has made a great contribution in more than one way–but that still doesn’t make me ignore the reality of the situation. He’s still a puppet–there’s no ignoring facts like he works for the Vatican/Zionism/Rothschilds–same with Ron Paul. Yes, they’ve done a lot more than other “leaders” or public figures, but that does not excuse them from criticism or the truth.

It’s part of the solution to talk about space beams and reptilians and beings from other star systems and planets and in the underground and the truth about Paul and Jones and any other person you see with clouded eyes.

You keep saying that others say that Jews are the cause–and that’s just not the case. You’ve bought into the grand “anti-Semitism” lies that the Zionists promote and use very effectively. The Rothschilds are reptilians/hybrids masquerading as Jews, then they use the Jew card to keep people ignorant of them, because you’re too afraid to talk about the truth openly. You can’t criticize the Jews, because, to you, they’re holy, sacred, something that’s already been drilled into you to be beyond reproach–not allowed to be spoken of except in defense and absurdity. They’re too important, powerful, unknown. Subconsciously, you know the truth, but your mind can’t handle the truth, so you continue to attack anybody who opposes your closed world views.

From: Joel
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: Clyde Lewis 911 Event

It’s not about a few people or lots of people in countries. It’s not that Jews or British or CIA, MI6/MI7, are behind all theses things. It’s more a matter of people being intelligent and responsible. We each don’t have first-hand knowledge, but we need to use common sense–and we need others’ info. You can’t trust any government agency nor people spewing hate. The Rothschilds and other Illuminati, dynasty families–international banking royals, heads of governments, and so forth–are the ones with the power. Obviously, the military is controlled by them–and no, the chemtrails are not just a “military communications” device. Use common sense. Israel is super powerful because of where it stands, who controls it, and why. It’s not the Jews. It’s the “game.” It’s perceptions, ignorance, and stubbornness. People simply refuse to open their eyes. They’re too afraid. So, they’re slaves. And they do have super weapons. That’s in the mainstream. People choose to believe that the super weapons are a good thing, when the definition of a weapon is the opposite. Stupid belief systems.

From:       Michael
    Subject:     Re: [Portland911Truth] word truth
    Date:     September 21, 2011 9:58:23 PM PDT

I like the fact that there is a discussion taking place, would love it if there could be more of a civil discussion. We are adults here. No need to attack with insults.
Personally, I’ve never seen any hard evidence or remote evidence for that matter of actual “reptilian people.” Not saying they don’t exist but let’s just acknowledge that they are people for now.
I have to agree that, as much as I want Ron Paul to “save the day” and expose the FED, it just won’t happen. I advocate to others for Ron Paul because of his thoughts but I’m a realist.
Alex Jones is a complete shill. I hated hearing that too Brad, for the first time, but once you open your mind up to it, it’s obvious. He’s done lots for waking people, but has they woken them up as much as he could? Absolutely not! He stays very clear of Israel and the Jewish mafia, when it is well known that they control the US on all angles. You can’t deny that. Yes, American “officials” like Dick Cheney and Bush, etc are all part of it, but to deny the Jewish connection is foolish. Have you heard of the USS LIBERTY?  How do you think the jews were granted the “right” to take over Palestine in the 50’s?

From:     Michael
    Subject:     Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: Clyde Lewis 911 Event
    Date:     September 21, 2011 10:08:44 PM PDT

I see your thoughts there Brad, well said.
Joel, very well said.
There is no end  all, be all, bad guy here to point the finger. They’re all murderers!
We can all agree on that and that we were completely lied to on 9/11. Its weird though, why would Israel be subserviant to others when they have all the money, weapons, and technology

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:36 PM, BRAD wrote:
I haven’t attacked anyone, I just mocked you. When I see people trying to turn 911 truth into a circus parade I speak up.

From: brad
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] word truth
I thought I mentioned the USS liberty in my note. My understanding of it was Israel acting in complicity with LBJ  to start a war with egypt. I don’t believe that LBJ was controlled by Israel, rather Israel and lbj had the same controllers as I believe is still the case now.  I think many people are reluctant to even talk about Israel because ther are so many raving lunatics out there claiming Israel has the power of god or something. Israel didn’t create itself, therefore the creators have more power than the created. It has a purpose to the creators and is used for that purpose. there is nothing autonomous about it.

where is your evidence that Alex Jones is a shill?  Out to make a buck for sure. guilty of constant self promotion. A suck up to celebrity absolutely. A shill? No I haven’t experienced that and I’ve heard nearly every show since 2005. I have an exellent memory. Show  some examples about how he is a shill. Try not to use logical fallacies like “it is well known that the jewish mafia controls the us.”  Why not “we have consensus the earth is flat and polar bears can’t swim in a straight line.”

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Michael
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 3:10 PM
Subject: Alex Jones- wake up to deception
Yeah, sorry I read that email after replying.
I thought I mentioned the USS liberty in my note. My understanding of it was Israel acting in complicity with LBJ  to start a war with egypt. I don’t believe that LBJ was controlled by Israel, rather Israel and lbj had the same controllers as I believe is still the case now.
                            Who are these controllers?
I think many people are reluctant to even talk about Israel because ther are so many raving lunatics out there claiming Israel has the power of god or something. Israel didn’t create itself, therefore the creators have more power than the created. It has a purpose to the creators and is used for that purpose. there is nothing autonomous about it.
                             Ever hear of the golden rule, he who has the gold, rules! I’m sure there is some truth to what you are saying.
where is your evidence that Alex Jones is a shill?  Out to make a buck for sure. guilty of constant self promotion. A suck up to celebrity absolutely. A shill? No I haven’t experienced that and I’ve heard nearly every show since 2005. I have an exellent memory. Show  some examples about how he is a shill. Try not to use logical fallacies like “it is well known that the jewish mafia controls the us.”  Why not “we have consensus the earth is flat and polar bears can’t swim in a straight line.”
                              Waking up people to Alex Jones is very difficult, just try it for a week. Pay attention to how defensive he gets, goes off on anyone that says anything about Israel involvement, etc. He’s a gate-keeper, no different than the rest of the shills on TV. Like I said, just try it for a week. Be willing to give up a little bit of what you think you know and see if a small glimpse of light gets through. After all, this is what we try to get people to do when waking them up to 9/11. Remember, being wrong about something is a good thing, it means you have just reached a higher level of consciousness and understanding. I sure hope that I’m wrong.

Alex Jones Provides Platform to Fanatical Zionist Wall St. Rabbi/Goldman Sachs VP

Just entertain the idea that he could possibly not have your best interest at heart and see what happens. I don’t know about you all but the only reason I’m involved in any of this TRUTH business is because I believe in integrity, values, TRUTH, justice, peace, and LOVE for all.

From: brad
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:08:03 -0400
To: ReplyTo:
Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: Alex Jones- wake up to deception

that is quite a deceptive article. the rabbi came on the show as the director of JPFO.  Are you now saying that JPFO is an evil zionist organization? Why did that article fail to mention JPFO even once? that is why he was on there. did jpfo pay to be on the AJ show?  probably that is often how it works. it is quite interesting how the article confuses Torah based education with talmudic indoctrination. not a mistake , done on purpose. So you are saying Jews are bad? I have known a lot of jews and most of them are really good people. Fun to make jokes about, but good people.  So your evidence is a blog article that claims the rabbi works for Goldman sachs. Wow.  My brother works for goldman sachs. Not a jew. not a zionist.  JPFO shares many of the same goals as does AJ and myself and what you should be working towards. Instead you spend your time trying to make people hack at the branches and avoid the root. You want people to be concerned with some boogieman Israel, but avoid dealing with the AMERICANS that have committed crimes and can be prosecuted for what they did. you cant do anything about some other sovereign nation, we collectively can do something about crimes committed here. Why would a 911 truth group spend all of its energy talking about Israel and Palestine and jews and christians and space beams when there are 1500 credible architects and engineering professionals putting their asses on the line proving to any reasonable person that the three towers were brought down by controlled demolition?  You say nanothermite is disinfo. wow, because its provable.  Instead you promote space beams and things that are unprovable even if it were used. You spen your energy promoting the idea that alex jones is a gatekeeper when he is bringing the same message to THE MAINSTREAM that others are bringing to a few people at a time. everyone who is having a positive effect you spend your energies trying to turn people away from them. 

If i worked for the feds here is the strategy i would follow. I would move to a new city where nobody knows me and can say that i work for the goverment. I would start a group claiming to oppose the issue that I am trying to protect.  I would try to discourage any talk about what is actually effective and keep the dialouge in areas that are completely unprovable and ridiculous to normal people who it is essential to relate with if there is to be social change. keep people spinning in circles promote attacks on foreign boogiemen kind of like muslim terrorists. dissuade newbies from listening to anyone that can direct them towards the root of the problem and attack anyone who is having a big effect. play the good guy and have my colleagues pipe in with the reptillian shapeshifting theories while pretending that as “the leader” I am against all of that.  If anyone joins the group that understands how things actually work try to make the group so disparaging and retarded that they are dissuaded from being active. once the group is formed you can have some control over the discourse in that area. Make people work for prosecutions on their own but as all costs keep the group as rabid as possible, discourage any real activism – keep the focus on jews and space beams and palestine and hating anyone who is having an effect. Use ridiculous claims in blog articles written by cointell officers as evidence and avoid any real evidence at all costs.  this is how I would try to control a movement in any given geographical area. The problem is this only works on fools.  Intelligent people will see you for what you are.

wait a minute that isn’t fish that I smell, I think its B,B,B,Bacon…….

From: Michael

Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:37 AM

Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: Alex Jones- wake up to deception

Wow! I have to say, I really like your “in your face” attitude. But I would be more receptive if you used more tact, I wonder if you speak like that in all of your relationships. I’m just pointing out somethings about Alex Jones and the Jewish mafia that has been running this country, with the aid of all the horrible american bad guys you speak of, for some time now.
HEY EVERYONE, only pay attention to A&E, don’t look at all of the parties involved! Or the reasons for doing it! Don’t pay attention to all of the dual-citizenships in DC of Israel and the heads of all of the major media networks. Just be obsessed with nano-thermite. How’s that Brad? Who doesn’t live in Portland and hasn’t started anything for 9/11 Truth in his “home city of Corvalis.”
Don’t take that tone again or I’ll bar you from the group on grounds of harrassment and in-fighting.
Hope you are all having a good one. I’m getting on with my day of spreading Truth, Peace and Love.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Joel wrote:
It’s about time more people wake up to the reality of Israel! and Israeli-American affairs and media and corporate control through Zionist and secret society concerns! Indeed, stop wasting your time and energy in-fighting, Brad, which is what you’re doing. People are searching for the truth, and Brad bashes people for doing so.

From: brad
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:11:34 -0400
To: ReplyTo:
Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: Alex Jones- wake up to deception

alex jones talks about the Isrealli dual citizens in and now out of the obama regime quite often. he must be a shill. I’m not in-fighting I smell something funny in this meetup. I may have been the only person to bring it up but I can guarantee that others have been turned off by all this isrealli space beam reptillian stuff. most people just seperate themselves from the stuff if it feels wrong but I like to point it out if it smells fishy. If just some of the links you post were disinfo I might have thought that you guys were dupes, but when all of the sites are disinfo and you guys(I’m assuming here I may be off base) have james fetzer come speak, promote the whole fake wing of 911 truth and talk bad about the people that are reaching more people than anybody else whether you like them or not(alex jones,ron paul and architects and engineers for 911 truth)it REALLY SMELLS FISHY TO ME.  I was in portland two weekends ago and went down to lucky lab to get a feel in person about the legitimacy of you guys and see what you talk about in person, but ther was only like 10 people in the whole place and none of them looked like truthers. If I was a shill I would definitely have a drinking night to establish my social standing with the group in the city I just moved to, while I spilled my filth about jews and unprovable space theories.  It is actually the same strategy (not the drinking night) that I use when fighting fluoridation here locally, but in reverse. THEY try to steer the discourse into areas of dentists and claim vs counterclaim and I focus on what is provable- that the hydroflurosalicic acid used is nothing but unrefined.toxic industrial waste. THEY always attempt to switch the debate into the science of fluoridation wherew you can find a stack of information a mile high either pro or con fluoride, that way it clogs up the city councils forever with muddy information that the people holding seats on the council are not really qualified to quantify the validity of. I see you doing the same thing with 911 truth, switching the debate into some muddy spectrum where no one is qualified to determine whether some exotic weaponry was used. “well its so exotic that nobody knows how it works therefore nobody can or can’t prove whether it was used at all(except for some guy who has a blog).”  In addition if this is all just the result of some “jewry” I could care less. I want accountability for the crimes that are committed, I could care less what the motives are fore some sick murderer to commit their crimes. Focusing on some jewish conspiracy puts the debate into some unprovable world you could never prove anything one way or another. you can’t prove motive. You can prove crime and physics.  If you were some follower who thought these things i would think you were just a fool but since you are the so called “leader” of this meetup I am quite convinced that you are something else..  like I said I smell bacon. -bradly

From: Michael
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 12:24 PM

Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: Alex Jones- wake up to deception

Suit yourself Brad. Thanks for your interest in the group and now I thank you for your absence. Didn’t bother to read anything but the first line of your email and it didn’t seem like you were kidding.
In a related note, there’s protests in NY and LA regarding the Federal Reserve and the criminal money changers, Alex Jones barely mentions it. Isn’t that what he is always working for? You’d think he’d make it a big deal. How can we get something like that going here in Portland? Anyone?
Take care Brad
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Joel wrote:
Great points, Michael. Indeed, Alex Jones would be out of a job if he attacked the financial power stack-of-cards pyramid scheme, because they finance his “career.”
I think stuff like that isn’t going on in Portland simply because Portland is so much smaller compared to LA and NYC. Seattle had huge protests about the WTO when they were in town, because that’s where those banksters operate (occasionally). Wall Street is always open to pillage–it’s the biggest financial center, except London?–and LA is the biggest entertainment (brainwashing) capitol, second-largest city in this country, though it is also very forward in many of the things it does. Rome is huge–they should be protesting there, but they’re pretty religious. Greece was having protests, too. Americans are pretty tame, except for some who’ve been rocked by 9/11, which should be a great catalyst for positive change–and it has been–though the negative seems to overshadow the good.

“GCN’s yoke with [affiliate of] ABC makes sense considering their willingness to broadcast commercials for New Age healing companies such as The New Age movement is an intrinsic part of the New World Order and most alternative media broadcasters are helping to further this movement.
GCN’s mainstream media connection might also account for the fact that Alex Jones, GCN’s main broadcaster, will not expose the high-level players in the NWO network, such as the Jesuits and the Scientologists (who employ many of the same control tactics as the Jesuits.)
For more information see this particular webpage: GCN: An ABC Affiliate (Note: We do not agree with every article or opinion on this website.)” ( –Alex’s broadcast company. Note: They don’t expose Zionists, either. ‘In addition, when I asked Mrs. Koernke where she thought Ted Anderson stood on the truth movement (i.e. if he really believed in its ideals), she said that “he was a businessman out to make money off the patriot movement, and he was just using them as a source to sell gold and silver for Midas Resources.”‘Just a business exploiting the “truth.”

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:19 PM, brad moss  wrote:

in many ways joel I would agree with the quote from mrs. koerneke whomever that is. I listened to mark a lot a long time ago and I liked his take on things at the time. I assume that is his wife. He always said to keep an eye on your local adl members and if they pack up and split town you had better do the same(concerning false flags)probably good advice. yes silverstein is of jewish descent but what is relevant about that? HOw about rumsfeld? he’s not a jew but of german descent so I guess he is a good guy. wait let me guess…. he’s a jew lover!

From: brad
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 01:03:24 -0400
To: ReplyTo:
Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: Alex Jones- wake up to deception

If you cant think of any rebuttal for my perceptions Michael just pretend you didn’t read it. Cover your ears and say three times “I cant hear you .”  I can’t know what you are but I can certainly see your actions.  “you will know them by their deeds.”

From:     Michael
    Subject:     Re: [Portland911Truth] Fw: Alex Jones- wake up to deception
    Date:     September 27, 2011 10:15:04 PM PDT

Sorry everyone who has been reading all of the negative crap by Brad, finally got him blocked from the group. Its funny how as soon as people start getting to the TRUTH, especially about Zionists, the attacks and discourse becomes much more angry and defensive. Hmmmmm?
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

From: Greg
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:07:33 -0500
To: John Beatty
Subject: Re: Have you seen this? (and yes it’s really me 😎

Hi.  It’s Mr. Negative here.  I have little to no faith in Houston as far as any number of activists or concerned citizens stepping out in the streets to do anything other than yell at the few who are in the streets.  I have bets that the number won’t be over 30 if it does happen.  We might hear a lot of honks when we’re on the bridge, but this city is still very much asleep in my opinion.


From: Michael
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:34:22 +0000
To: Greg from Houston

ReplyTo: Michael
Subject: Re: Have you seen this? (and yes it’s really me 😎

Were doing it here in Portland.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Sep 28, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Michael wrote:
Awesome to see these events trying to pop up all over the country in attempt to combat the banksters and bring awareness.
Also, Wayne Madsen was on Alex Jones today. Last time I heard from him, he was writing a book about Obama’s birthplace. Hmmmmmm, funny, but no mention of that today. Just illustrating how phony AJ and his guests can be at times. One big psy-op!!! And for all you AJ lovers out there, Yes he has a good platform for “waking people up” but he’s not doing it fully and has interests other than the “peoples prosperity, integrity and love” guiding him. Watch how defensive he gets about Israel. Its just so obvious.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

From: “J.T. Waldron”
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:00:36 -0400

Just checking  – are you weighing in on the debate with the guy you kicked off the forum?


From:     Michael
    Subject:     Re: [Portland911Truth] Re: Have you seen this? Also, Wayne Madsenon Alex Jones today.
    Date:     September 28, 2011 11:09:54 AM PDT

What debate JT? What is your problem man? Seriously! I have nothing to hide. I’m sick of your accusations as well. I keep saying that I don’t know exactly what happened on 9/11, other than I know I and we are all being lied to. I posted some meetups and action events. Will you be there as my brother or my enemy? What are you trying to prove? Why are you so paranoid? I remember how we went to a rally about a year ago and you seemed cool. I tried to get stuff going with you and for whatever reason, you got all reclusive and secretive. Don’t respond with anything negative or less than constructive, if you can’t do that, remove yourself from the group. Hope you get disillusioned about who I am. I will not sit here and defend my efforts to promote Truth, Justice, and Peace for one second longer

From: “J.T. Waldron”
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:53:47 -0400
To: ReplyTo:
Subject: Re: [Portland911Truth] Re: Have you seen this? Also, Wayne Madsenon Alex Jones today.

Well, I was under the impression that there was an exchange between you and Brad Moss about subjects concerning Israel, Zionism, Judaism and Alex Jones.

What initially caught my attention was when the only explosive residue that remains in the dust samples as evidence was being dismissed as bogus based on a presentation by James Fetzer.  That would catch anybody’s attention.

You agree we’re being lied to.  Fine.  That makes a big group.

Ever answer an employment add to find a group of people sitting in a room waiting for a pitch for a straight commission sales job?  One might figure out what it is and get up to leave the room.  What does the person running the meeting do?  Explain to the rest of the crowd how that the person who just left “doesn’t have what it takes to soar with the eagles and needs to be confined to a 9-5 job”.

When you pick up the same subject and reinforce your points after you pulled the dude’s plug (because of your exchange over the same subject matter) it looks self serving.  Maybe it’s just me with an etiquette issue.

Anyway, if you think that I’m not strong enough against Alex Jones and Zionism or I’m leaning too heavy on the stuff that would work in a judicial review, then do what you think is important in this case.


    From:     Michael
    Subject:     Re: [Portland911Truth] Re: Have you seen this? Also, Wayne MadsenonAlex Jones       today.
    Date:     September 28, 2011 12:31:53 PM PDT

I appreciate your tone, very constructive yet still slightly accusational, regarding your comment about pulling his plug. He was being insulting. We are all not going to see things with the exact same view and that’s ok, but there must be tact and respect durin discussion. That’s why he was removed from the group. Not bc I’m self serving.

I agree that there is evidence of things that would hold up “judicially” and I am all for that. I only said to be aware of the possibility based on other physical evidence that could point to other theories of the demolitions. Sorry if its not perfectly in line with your views, but that’s the way it is. If you, JT, and anyone else, only want to believe A&E for 911 Truth, then so be it, but I am going to keep an open mind and not be nieve enough to think that I know every type of explosive or super weapon out there. I remember how upset I got with a friend when he introduced the “no planes” theory, but now realize that it is indeed possible, based on the corporate media power structure. That’s why I focus on having a “big group” as you say, rather than isolate and divide, as all of your comments seem to point to. We need to have common ground, storm DC and take the Truth right out of the pentagon computers. Courts aren’t going to save you or me or provide any justice, look at the history, they’re all corrupt.

I hope some of this gets through to you
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

—– Original Message —–
From: Greg
To: sullivan michael < Michael>
Cc: Portland 9/11 Truth Alliance and various individuals
Sent: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:12:01 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: URGENT ACTION: Please Vote to have OWS include a 9/11 truth legal action

The idea that we will ever have an honest investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001 is absurd.  The People, including many ‘experts’ have done the investigation!  It’s been done and we even know many names of those involved.  To think for any reason whatsoever that there might one day be an official investigation where justice is involved is nothing but a pipe dream.  If the day ever came that we could have an real investigation it would mean that there would be no need for it because that would mean the shit has been cleaned up and we have honest people in control.

IF… there ever was to be an investigation such as what shills like Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, the AE911Truth team and others are pushing for then I assure you the so-called truthers would no doubt be represented by those very shills and their messages.  If they used the baseless claim that nanothermite brought down the towers, for example, the truthers would be laughed out of court immediately because the science isn’t there to support the absurd theory that something that is not an explosive can bring down towers alone.

OR… if we had such an investigation they could use those very shills along with AJ, Tarpley and others who cover up for Israel’s crimes and turn to entire thing into a big – USA did it campaign as part of their way of tearing down this country and bringing us into a one-world government.  The perpetrators knew the people would learn about the big lie so they put their people in place to begin with and have been teaching people to change “inside job” for years.  The perpetrators want the U.S. to be blamed in the end as Israel gets off without a slap on the wrist and our country is exposed as the sole criminal who should be dealt with by blending us in with other nations around the globe for our own ‘safety.’

Calling for a new investigation is a total joke and is no doubt part of what the shills in the movement want us to keep fighting for.  It’s a total stalling tactic.  The perpetrators don’t care if AE911Truth keeps doing what they do.  They don’t care what AJ says.  They don’t care what Webster Tarpley shares with the public.  The perps don’t care as long as you don’t go after them.  The fake truth movement was set in motion to help keep focus on stupid things like asking for justice through a real investigation (LMAO) instead of focusing on the pricks that orchestrated and profited from the attacks.

My thoughts,

From: Michael

To: Greg < Greg from Houston>
Cc: Portland 9/11 Truth Alliance and various individuals

Sent: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:35:25 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: URGENT ACTION: Please Vote to have OWS include a 9/11 truth legal action

Greg, I love your thinking! Including the idea that there is even reason to question 9/11 at OWS is a step in the right direction. Pinning our hopes on an investigation is naive, Pinning our hopes on getting the masses to question the OCT of 9/11 is necessary. We have to keep stirring the pot.


J.T. Waldron
    Subject:     Re: [Portland911Truth] Re: URGENT ACTION: Please Vote to have OWS include a 9/11 truth legal action
    Date:     October 19, 2011 1:00:37 PM PDT

If you got reproducible, scientific studies that point to exotic weaponry, let’s see them.

It’s a red flag when the statement is made denying the explosive nature of nanothermate, especially when it was so adequately demonstrated on the 10th anniversary by David Chandler and Jon Cole.  They spent hours doing it.  Again, there’s never an attempt to deny the existence of other explosives, so mutual exclusivity seems to only be implied by those arguing against thermate (usually by calling it thermite).

I guess if you repeat something a number of times, regardless of the disparity between what you are saying and what was demonstrated publicly, we might finally throw up our hands and abandon any evidence that would be helpful for the pursuit of justice.

Sure, every branch of our government is corrupt or “rigged”.   Seen it up close.  That doesn’t mean you can’t paint somebody in the corner and create a defining moment.  Seen that happen as well.  

This crime is absent an authentic criminal investigation.   Due process has never been used in this case.

Seems we’re being encouraged to abandon this pursuit because it won’t be a fair process.  When was it ever a fair process?  Were there ever productive outcomes (new discoveries) that resulted from past investigations?  Certainly.

If an authentic criminal investigation is a stall tactic, what’s being stalled?  Where is due process if we’re expected to “go after the perps”?


On Oct 19, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Michael wrote:
If you got reproducible, scientific studies that point to exotic weaponry, let’s see them.
Who is this statement to, JT? If you’re responding to Greg’s comments, then it would be great if you could click reply to all to keep the discussion intact. You know where I stand on the demolitions. I DON’T KNOW!!!

What is your message advocating JT? Its confusing. Are you in favor of a real investigation? Thermite/thermate whatever in my book buddy. Like I said, let’s occupy the pentagon and get the answers, instead of the petty infighting that gets us NO WHERE! Who’s with me?

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:46 PM, J.T. Waldron wrote:

Yes, I hit “reply” instead of “reply all”, but “reply all” wouldn’t have worked either.   I’ll go ahead and add all the various emails to this response if you prefer.

I don’t see any ambiguity in my statement below.  If there’s something you don’t understand, let me know what it is.


From:Greg from Houston
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:47:34 +0000 (UTC)
To: Greg
Cc: Portland 9/11 Truth Alliance and various individuals
Subject: adenda Re: URGENT ACTION: Please Vote to have OWS include a 9/11 truth legal action
Dr Jones already proved himself as a spoiler with cold fusion. Dr Jones was fired for being slack, not 9/11 truth. Kevin Barret was fired for 9/11 truth.

No professional demolition experts support thermate. Take the best from all theories. Hurricane Erin was in a perfect position to act as a vaccum cleaner, preventing any evidence of nuclear demolition from reaching sensors in Europe by prevailing winds. Judy Wood includes the best evidence of nuclear demolition at her website, although she proposes exotic weapons. Dr Ed Ward proves nuclear demolition, citing radiation specific cancers and tritium levels 55X normal, etc.

All collapse videos are suspect. The collapse videos of Building 7 are 100% fake.

On Oct 21, 2011, at 7:23 PM, Michael wrote:
So…. Greg, why do you think the towers fell?
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Oct 22, 2011, at 12:12 AM, J.T. Waldron wrote:

O.K., so I’m reading that no professional demolition experts support thermite (which, again, is supposed to be thermate).

You telling me Tom Sullivan doesn’t support the use of thermate as a means to cut key loads?


 “September Clues”:

One redeeming quality about “September Clues” is that it helps to find out who is pushing this theory in the first place. Take a good look at this movie and you soon realize that those pushing the “no planes hit the building theory” are compromised.  To state the obvious, the only functions for these assertions are to distract the 9/11 Truth movement and diminish its credibility.  Cass Sunstein’s wet dream.

If a movement is going to make it on its own, however, it must be able to overcome these incohesive side shows to become stronger and more focused in its message.  That is exactly what happened in 2006 between “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” and “Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice”.

The prospect of an effective 9/11 Truth movement in Portland seems to be nightmare for somebody.


On Oct 22, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Michael wrote:
Hey JT,
What’s with the last comment of your previous email? What would you do to have a more “effective Portland 9/11 Truth?” Better yet, what have you/are you doing for Portland 9/11 Truth except dish out negative comments? You don’t strike me as someone who is actually out to do good, just sayin’. Not sure if its your ego or you are part of the establishment but you criticize with no better suggestions. Why is that?
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

From:     Greg from Houston
    Subject:     Re: [Portland911Truth] Re: adenda Re: URGENT ACTION: Please Vote to have OWS include a 9/11 truth legal action
    Date:     October 22, 2011 11:27:15 AM PDT


I spent a while the other night writing responses to this e-mail chain, but decided to think it out more.  For now…

“those pushing the “no planes hit the building theory” are compromised.”
Am I compromised, J.T.?  Are all of the many activists I know who also support the claim that we shown fake images of planes hitting towers also compromised?  Or is this maybe about the evidence and not who mentions it?  Is it possible that crazy acting people were put out there to introduce the idea of no-planes to discredit that reality?  That way shills like Alex Jones can call them crazy people, completely ignore the evidence to support the theories and then sweep it under the  rug like it never happened, leaving his hypnotized audience to then repeat his rhetoric and attack anyone who so much as mentions no-planes?

“To state the obvious, the only functions for these assertions are to distract the 9/11 Truth movement and diminish its credibility.”

I certainly wouldn’t start out saying it’s “obvious” and definitely wouldn’t take it even further using the word “only,” especially when the statement is so far from reality.  The argument that the no-planes theories are “only” there to “distract” and “diminish” “credibility” is nothing but rhetoric.  In fact it reminds me of sheeple in the street telling me that there is no way we could have been lied to about the attacks of September 11, 2001 because too many people would have to be involved.  Neither of those statements are based on any evidence whatsoever.  In fact the evidence refutes both statements.

I can easily prove my point by asking you, J.T., to please point me in the direction of any mainstream media reports on TV, online or in print that refer to 9/11 truthers as no-planers!  If the no-planes theory isn’t based on evidence and is really created by the perps to discredit the movement then wouldn’t the media masterminds be using it repeatedly to do just that?  The fact is that the terrorist attacks of that day were mostly thanks to a major media hoax.  The major weapon in regards to the events was and remains the mainstream media and there is no chance in the world that they’re going to even entertain the idea of exposing themselves by sharing the message of fake videos with the public.  Again, if you are so certain that one of the only reasons is to discredit the movement then please, please point out where anyone other than confused truthers are calling out that we’re all nuts for believing such things.  I remember one interview on Fox News several years ago when Morgan Reynolds said it looked like a cartoon.  Seems that I’d have seen tons of clips by now if that is the reason for the theories in the first place.

I have had no problem remaining good friends with and continuing to hit the streets with others who do not see eye-to-eye with me about no-planes.  That is because it is only a divisive theory when people like you, J.T., make it into such!  It is those like you who try to refute evidence with rhetoric who add the potential of a less-effective group.

The no-planes angle is the best way to attack and destroy their biggest, most powerful weapon of all time – their fake news.  Exposing the clear fact that we were shown images that could not represent reality could do wonders to finally discredit the media.  So you see, it’s the other way around.  The theory helps destroy the media who helped pull off the attacks, not those sharing the honest message.  And that is why the media will NEVER try to make no-planes an issue to discredit anyone.

I don’t think you have a clue about why the scholars groups split up.  I say that because it seems clear to me that you buy into the fake truth movement and support the given leaders without questioning things with logic and reason.  If you believe shills like either of the Jones scumbags who are seen as leaders than you’re sure as lost.  Rhetoric will never win a debate.

So many so-called truthers are happy to explain to strangers that the 80+ floors below the alleged impact site would have had to provide resistance, meaning the Twin Towers could never have come down at near free fall speed.  Yet so many of those same truthers ignore the exact same science that explains that the building would not only have provided resistance to the floors above, but also to a plane hitting the side of the tower.  If you watch the video of the alleged second hit you’ll see there is NO COLLISION!  Not only did the building provide no resistance whatsoever to a 757, it even allowed it to pass all the way through the building at the same speed it did through thin air and then come out on the other side (nosed-out).  Hmmmm.  I guess I should trust those videos because to do otherwise would  be divisive.

In regards to the sad joke of nanothermite pushed down the throats of the less-than-free-thinking truthers:

The prospect of thinking outside of the box with logic and reason seems to be a nightmare for somebody.


Missing wing, no collision, tail wings go in same hole as front wings, which are much lower, traveling through the building without slowing at all from the speed in thin air, impossible speeds, etc.  I could go on and on and on…

Hmmmmm!!!!  Nothing to see here.  Look away.  😛

    Subject:     Re: [Portland911Truth] Re: adenda Re: URGENT ACTION: Please Vote to have OWS     include a 9/11 truth legal action
    Date:     October 22, 2011 3:46:43 PM PDT

This is a response to Mike’ s last email and to Greg’s email (nanothermite-if-it-doesn’t-fit-you-must-acquit):

Not my ego.  Just no place to go.  I’ve been actively involved with 9/11 Truth since 2005.

Here’s some of the work we’ve done since the group started:>>>>>>>>>>>

If you look at the uploads, you could see some of the past demos.

This one is particularly interesting:

We hosted Fetzer, Gage, Rodriguez, Griffin, Bowman, etc.

By the way, the 2006 Tucson presentation was one of the events that caused Steven Jones to reconsider his relationship with Fetzer.  We watched it in real time as it came to a head.

It’s been a lot of trial and error.  First thing we noticed, one of the founders was a little squishy over Israeli involvement.  Insisted on minutes of the meetings (this serves to implicate the group later) and changing the minutes whenever a guest speaker would discuss involvement by Israel.

And of course, it’s one of the founders of the the group that happened to be pulling this stuff.

The typical tactics are to try to schedule events that are bad ideas (on off days or dumb times), exhaust the groups treasury, or waste people’s time with ventures that have a high use of time per person reached.

Speaking of wasting time, the local Pima County Green Party in AZ insisted on having people collect signatures from door to door residents instead of educating their potential base about their group, which is the fastest path to ballot access.  Other folks will try to get you to hook up with groups that are obviously compromised, like Move-On or other ineffectual massively funded groups that lean heavy on party politics.

Back then, what broke up Phoenix’s 9/11 Truth group (exodus to ‘We Are Change’) was the hours spent by them arguing over protrusions (In 1st “Loose Change” and “In Plane Site” ) at the bottom of the plane and the the flame-up from the walls near the engines while the plane is going into the building. Staring at still frames, again.

This was a case of a group leader (Kent Knudsen) who allowed this crap to occupy the people’s time until they got frustrated and gave up.  Observing this phenomenon caused us to realize that those pushing this stuff are best viewed as compromised,  For example, a person we’re presenting to (usually politicians or people in a meaningful position of power) would immediately latch on to the stupidest point to relieve themselves of the need to further look into the matter.  True to form, you wind up with a podster wriggling his way into a meeting.  This typically turns into a wasted meeting that goes South the instant Mr. Pod opens his mouth.  Despite these occurrences, we made good progress.

There has been a certain degree of success for 9/11 Truth.  That’s why it is now a target for these shenanigans.

This seems less than ironic given that Portland, OR is a huge hub for activism.  Home of the largest extra-New York occupation movement in the country.

Most of the Portland 9/11 Truth Alliance subscribe to and push the  “September Clues” bunk.   First learning this, I was able to relate to the dude that put on the “They Live” glasses for the first time.  Add this to attempting to denounce the only evidence indicating use of explosive material – Based on a presentation by Jim Fetzer.  You can’t do anything with this.  An elementary point learned long ago.  I try to figure out how I can meaningfully contribute, but the situation is compromised.

Sure, I lack tact, but I’ll normally shut up unless something absurd comes my way.  Then it shouldn’t go unchallenged.  I encourage others to do so as well.

By the way.  No response to my past point about abandoning an authentic criminal investigation and due process.  Would like to see one.

Hope this helps,


From: Greg
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:30:37 -0500
To: houston truth
Subject: Woman loses job for speaking the truth

So sad to see the honest ones punished for speaking the truth.


Subject: Interesting development…

FYI: There was a video floating around on Youtube of a lady named Patricia McAllister who attended the LA Occupy Wall St event. It gained a lot of attention because of her honesty. Of course the mainstream media took it out of context and made a mockery of her… nothing new here.

Apparently she was recently fired from her job because of her outspokenness towards the financial problems in America. Didn’t even get a pink slip to go with the dismissal!

You can download a podcast from Truth Hertz – Charles Giuliani talk show and listen to her experience. Very interesting!

On Oct 24, 2011, at 10:49 PM, Michael wrote:

Sorry if you’re working on a response. Just curious… If it was media fakery and not nanothermite/mate, what do you or anyone else in the group think brought down the towers?
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

From: Greg
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:43:18 -0500
Cc: houston truth
Subject: Re: Woman loses job for speaking the truth

It seems to me most 9/11 truthers don’t believe that planes had anything to do with the collapse of the towers so whether one is a no-planer or not shouldn’t change that.  I don’t deny that nanothermite could have played a role in the destruction, but it definitely isn’t the smoking gun to bring justice.

Being a no-planer and not buying into the hype about nanothermite still leaves infinite options for the destruction of the Twin Towers.  Nanothermite is not a high explosive so ruling that out as the main component should come as no surprise to anyone in my opinion.


On Oct 24, 2011, at 11:51 PM, Michael wrote:

So… Nanothermite played a role, what role do you think?

Does anybody else in this entire group have any thoughts on what brought the towers down? Anyone?
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

From: Greg
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:56:45 -0500
Cc: houston truth
Subject: Re: Woman loses job for speaking the truth

Nanothermite sure as ____ didn’t bring the towers down.  That I do know.  I assume it could have been used on columns to help cut the steel, but it didn’t cause the squibs I’ve seen ejecting from the towers and didn’t turn all of that concrete and steel into dust.  The idea that we should focus on nanothermite as the smoking gun to 9/11 is a sick joke played out by the perps and the truther community bought it hook, line and sinker.  Some people will forever be sheeple, no matter what group they’re aligned with.


On Oct 24, 2011, at 11:58 PM, Michael wrote:

So then what? do you not care? Do you not want to have an answer for those that you are trying to wake up to the lie?
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

From: Greg
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:04:32 -0500
To: < Michael>
Cc: houston truth
Subject: Re: Woman loses job for speaking the truth

NANOTHERMITE as the smoking gun is a total red herring / hoax.  Why does not buying into the hype about that have to mean I don’t care about what brought the towers down?

I’d rather show or tell people about Building 7 coming down than try to explain how some incendiary the military makes is to blame for destruction of the towers.

Why does it have to be one way or the other?  Either nanotherimite BS story or buy into the official report?

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:21 AM,  wrote:

It doesn’t… I was just having a discussion to see where your researched/leader of the 911 Truth group, head was at regarding the subject.
I wonder why nanothermite would be introduced as a red herring if in reality there was just some other kind of explosive used, any thoughts on that specifically?

How about super weapons?

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Oct 24, 2011, at 11:52 PM, Greg wrote:

“For me, it is important I remain open-minded about the details of what brought down the towers, put a hole in the pentagon and a crater in Pennsylvania field. “

Agreed!!  That is the most important part.

I no doubt am very opinionated, but I do my best to stay open-minded.  I always love to be proven wrong and never get more excited about reading or watching something that I’ve been told will do just that.
I. LOVE. THAT. CLIP.  lolol to the bank!  Ah man!  And when asked again as to get clarification er you didn’t mean to say jooooooooooooooooooooooooooos run things…did you?  lol no zionist jews…lol.  Anyways, too many lol’s already.  But that is a great clip.  ” What would you say if somebody said that about your race”  ” You better say something if they were trying to destroy the country!”  …lol…couldn’t resist
In my opinion, she didn’t get fired.  She got promoted.

Anyways, about the 9-11 to be or not to be.  First off, let me say this.  I am a layman aka idiot on the science of this stuff.  I rely on a lot of my basic instinct and common knowledge with this topic.  I was suspicious of what I saw 9.11.01.  I remember thinking while watching the tv…”something doesn’t look right.  Is that building warping?”  As in inhaling and exhaling.  When I had that thought, I began to question what I was seeing despite the hysterics and the magnitude of the current situation.  Afterall, what I was seeing was on TV.  But it wasn’t until some years later that I began to seriously question the official 9.11 conspiracy.  What I think brought down the twin towers?  I can’t say for certain but I am pretty sure it wasn’t two planes.  Govt theory:  two planes brought down two 100+ floors buildings and a third building with 47 or so floors at free fall speed.  Horse shit.

I do not discount super weapons or any reasonable possibility.  I am sure the government have instruments within its possession that many of us could never imagine.  For me, it is important I remain open-minded about the details of what brought down the towers, put a hole in the pentagon and a crater in Pennsylvania field.

On Oct 25, 2011, at 7:06 PM, J.T. Waldron wrote:

Past statements:

“Nanothermite sure as ____ didn’t bring the towers down.  That I do know.  I assume it could have been used on columns to help cut the steel, but it didn’t cause the squibs I’ve seen ejecting from the towers and didn’t turn all of that concrete and steel into dust.  The idea that we should focus on nanothermite as the smoking gun to 9/11 is a sick joke played out by the perps and the truther community bought it hook, line and sinker.  Some people will forever be sheeple, no matter what group they’re aligned with.”

“I don’t deny that nanothermite could have played a role in the destruction, but it definitely isn’t the smoking gun to bring justice. ”

Understanding how one turn of a phrase can get exploited ad nauseam, I’ll attempt to eliminate confusion over one point about the nanothermate:

I previously said “Add this to attempting to denounce the only evidence indicating use of explosive material – Based on a presentation by Jim Fetzer.”

In fact, there’s all kinds of other evidence.  Even with the push to weaken the video evidence, we still have video evidence, eye-witness testimony, iron droplets in the dust, beams with bolts removed, seismic data, steel beams with diagonal cuts from charges, melted/warped beams and a ton of additional circumstantial evidence.

While most appreciate what scientists and experts bring through the use of their time and lab materials for research, alert people really don’t need them.  The three buildings’ demolitions could be intuited by a mere child playing with building blocks.

That said, once a great amount of lab work and research yields something that is verified as a remaining trace material in the WTC  dust,  pay close attention to those who will try to dismiss it.

Also mentioned previously:  There’s never an attempt to deny the existence of other explosives, so mutual exclusivity (between nanothermate and other explosives) seems to be implied only by those arguing against thermate (usually by calling it thermite).


On Oct 25, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Greg wrote:

“Based on a presentation by Jim Fetzer.” — Correction.  It was by Mark Hightower – not Fetzer.  And again you attack a messenger instead of the evidence, or lack-thereof.

“Only evidence indicating use of explosive material.”  There you go using “only” when there are in fact many signs that explosives were used.

“… seems to be implied only by those arguing against thermate (usually by calling it thermite).  ”  — Dude… There is thermite and thermate, but what we are referring to is nano-thermite, not nanothermate.  You are terribly confused about a lot of things, J.T.

I could go on, but to respond to either of your last two e-mails that contained nothing but gibberish is really a waste of time for all of us.  The e-mail before this one of yours was especially confusing.

“Pay close attention” to me everyone.  I don’t buy into mainstream truth movement so I therefore must be a threat to peace.  😛


On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:21 PM, J.T. Waldron wrote:

The presentation that was given by Fetzer took place here in Portland.  It’s what prompted the leader here to declare something to the effect of “thermite is bogus”.    So that’s how I arrived at saying, “based on a presentation by Jim Fetzer”, because it was based on the presentation by Jim Fetzer.   

My source:

The Dark Implications of Nanothermate in WTC Dust – Unlikely Heroes Explain

One email previously indicated that, “The only evidence indicating use of explosive material” is inaccurate and went on to list additional evidence.  It’s interesting to see the choice to use the phrase that has already been dealt with, especially after the discrepancy was pointed out by the person you are addressing.

I’ve been looking at previous findings of sulfur in the dust and other articles referring to nanothermate, but the most important aspect to the “nano” properties is its explosive nature – demonstrated in Toronto on on the 10th anniversary on 9/11.    

If there is anything else you have trouble understanding, tell me what it is specifically.  I’ll let you know if it happens to be a mistake.  The “gibberish” thing just isn’t cutting it.

Still looking for a response about abandoning an authentic criminal investigation and due process…


From: Greg from Houston
To: J.T. Waldron
Cc:Portland 9/11 Truth Alliance and various individuals
Subject: Re: Woman loses job for speaking the truth

I guess J.T. only speaks one language, gibberish, so I am finished trying to communicate with him for that reason.

J.T. – Have fun on your continuing attempts to stifle real discussion and keep everyone focused only on what the 9/11 truth gods tell us to talk about.  I don’t know for sure, but I have a strong feeling you don’t like the Israel topic either.  I’d ask you, but since I’m through communicating after this e-mail I’ll be content assuming and will place my bets if the option arises.

The key to exposing 9/11 is to say nano-thermite three times as you tap your heels together.  You can say nano-thermate if you prefer, J.T.  I won’t tell.  😉

Nano-thermite nano-thermite nano-thermite.  There.  All better.   🙂


    From:      Greg from Houston
    Subject:     Re: Woman loses job for speaking the truth
    Date:     November 15, 2011 12:02:03 AM PST
    To:       J.T. Waldron, Portland 9/11 Truth Alliance and various>>>>>

Wait until the Pope gets his One World Currency (Government and Religion, too!) Fired, how about a good old Inquisition? The Jesuits control the central banks already. You ain’t seen nothing yet! Rule by black Mass pedophiles.

Here’s something recent by Dr Fetzer on nonothermate (intentional mispelling). Unlike Kevin Barret, Stephen Jones was fired for being a slack professor. Dr Jones also submarined cold fusion research. Question authority, especially when it pretends to be on your side. Also, the Toronto conference coincided with a Montreal conference by A close analysis of the collpse videos of WTC7 reveals they are fake! Notice the black lines around the perimeter of the building?

Nanothermite: If It Doesn’t Fit, You Must Acquit!
T. Mark Hightower (with Jim Fetzer)

Those who remember the 1995 O.J. Simpson trial will recall the gloves that turned out to be “too small” for O.J.’s hands when the long-awaited day of trying them on in the courtroom finally arrived. The blood-soaked gloves (one found at the crime scene and the other found outside O.J.’s house in Brentwood the morning after his former wife was murdered) were gloated over as “hard evidence” by the prosecution and the media, which is very comparable to how the discovery of unignited nanothermite chips in the WTC dust is considered to be “hard evidence” of the explosive demolition of the Twin Towers on September 11th, 2001.

Although some have expressed skepticism about what is often called the “smoking gun” of 9/11, the great majority of 9/11 Truthers have accepted – and many have celebrated – this discovery, confident that it will lead to “a new, independent investigation” of the event and bring the perpetrators to justice. But precisely how did the resulting “nanothermite theory” of destruction of the Twin Towers come about – and how well does it stand up to critical scrutiny?>>>>>

Why Nanothermite?
Observations by first responders of apparent molten metal – thought to be molten iron – could be explained by thermite reactions, which, in turn, could possibly explain the severing of steel columns through a process of melting. However, the explosive effects observed in the destruction call for some further explanation. Nanothermite has been identified as a candidate, being faster-reacting and alleged to be “an explosive form” of thermite.
  In a paper titled “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?” (2006), physicist Dr.    Steven E. Jones cited thermite to explain the molten metal and first started raising the possibility that  nanothermite could explain the additional explosive effects observed. Then four dust samples  collected in the aftermath of the towers’ collapse by different individuals were sent to Dr. Jones, and  upon testing, they were found to contain unreacted red chips of a nanothermitic material.

Those results were reported in a later paper titled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in the Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels Harrit, et al. (April, 2009), and because of this many assumed that nanothermite had been definitively identified as the prime candidate destructive agent. The paper, said to have been peer-reviewed, came out in the Open Chemical Physics Journal (Bentham Science Publishers), causing 9/11 Truthers to run with the news that explosive nanothermite blew up the Twin Towers, proclaiming what soon became a form of gospel in the 9/11 community. The Gospel of Nanothermite has given the incendiary properties of thermite a set of new miraculous powers: in its nano-state it becomes “Super Thermite” – a high-explosive that pulverized hundreds of thousands of tons of building materials in no more than 10 seconds.
A Literature Search
A scientific person, or one who prefers to use logic, might wonder about such claims and proceed by examining the scientific literature on nanothermite as well as the principle of how explosives achieve destructive force through generating shock waves that produce fragmentation. This might be a good time to note that the Rock Creek Free Press made a very important point in its May 2009 article on nanothermite: “To be a high explosive, the reaction speed must exceed the speed of sound in the material, which is unlikely in the case of thermitic materials, but nano-thermitic material may act as a low explosive in a manner similar to gunpowder.”
Few who have carefully watched video footage of the Twin Towers coming down could fail to notice what might appropriately be called “explosive effects” in the nature of the destruction. The question then would be: Were conventional explosives or some other kind of destructive energy source employed? If nanothermite is indeed a high explosive, then was it also necessary to use conventional explosives to achieve the demolition of the towers? The more sophisticated believer might agree that conventional explosives also could have been employed, but for the scientifically less sophisticated 9/11 Truther, the “Thermite/Nanothermite Gospel” says it all – and has been “conclusively proven” by the nine authors of the 2009 published and peer-reviewed paper.

But what does other peer-reviewed scientific literature actually have to say about nanothermite? “Nanoscale Aluminum-Metal Oxide (Thermite) Reactions for Application in Energetic Materials,” Central European Journal of Energetic Materials (2010), authored by Davin G. Piercey and Thomas M. Klapötke, identifies the fastest known combustion velocity for a mixture of metal oxide and aluminum: 2,400 meters per second (m/s), in a type of nanothermite made of copper oxide and aluminum. Remember that what Steven Jones found in the dust was iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite. The authors of this paper make it clear that copper-oxide/aluminum nanothermite is significantly more reactive than the iron-oxide version, and cite a combustion velocity of 895 m/s for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite aerogel. So 895 m/s is the highest velocity yet to be found for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite in the scientific literature, where this velocity is far too low to have played a significant role in the destruction of the Twin Towers by means of its shock waves.

Not Powerful Enough
Let’s examine the reason for that important last statement. The “destructive fragmentation effect” of an explosive is its detonation velocity, or the speed of the shock wave through the substance it is traveling in. To significantly fragment a substance, the detonation velocity of the explosive must equal or exceed the sonic velocity (the speed of sound) in the material. For example, the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s. In steel, the speed of sound is 6,100 m/s. Conventional high explosives such as TNT and RDX have detonation velocities of 6,900 and 8,750 m/s respectively, and are therefore capable of fragmenting concrete and steel, because both 6,900 and 8,750 exceed the sonic velocities of 3,200 m/s required to shatter concrete and 6,100 m/s required to shatter steel. As Dwain Deets has diagrammed, at only 895 m/s, iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite does not come close to TNT and RDX.

However, prominent 9/11 researchers have nonetheless termed nanothermite to be a powerful explosive. The very highly respected David Ray Griffin, Ph.D. calls nanothermite a “high explosive” in his July 6, 2010 article entitled “Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?”, which was published in the online journal, Global Research. “High explosives, such as RDX or nanothermite,” wrote Griffin, “could explain these horizontal ejections.”
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the most revered of 9/11 research groups, published a piece called “Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust” on April 5, 2009. In this they stated, “Ordinary thermite burns quickly and can melt through steel, but it is not explosive. Nanothermite, however, can be formulated as a high explosive.”
A “Secret” Technology?
While searching the open scientific literature on nanothermite and establishing the low detonation velocity of its iron-oxide/aluminum variety, chemical engineer T. Mark Hightower has been in contact and shared his findings with Dr. Steven Jones and the authors of the highly regarded April 2009 nanothermite paper, as well as with several other well-known 9/11 Truth leaders. The most recent responses to his challenges fall into two general categories. One response is that the combustion velocity of 895 m/s is enough to explain the Twin Towers’ destruction. The other is the rather persistent claim that nanothermite can indeed be a high explosive, where this formulation is a military secret that is not discussed in the open literature.
Alright. It is true that military explosives’ research employs nanotechnology and that applications involving nanothermite are a subset of this research. (The military even connects nanotechnology with mini-nukes, stating that a mini-nuke device the size of a suitcase could destroy an entire building.) But to suggest that the American military has a “secret recipe” that converts iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite into a high explosive when this claim is contradicted by the open literature doesn’t make any sense.
Easily found in the open literature is that copper-oxide/aluminum nanothermite can have a combustion velocity of 2,400 m/s, compared to 895 m/s for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite. If the 2,400 m/s number is not a military secret, why would a velocity greater than 895 m/s (for the iron-oxide variety of nanothermite) have to be kept secret? It is far more likely that the highest reported value of 895 m/s is due to physical property limitations of iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite rather than a need to keep higher values secret.
“Combined” with Explosives?
Additionally – just to be safe, perhaps – 9/11 nanothermite advocates also maintain the fall-back position that, even if nanothermite by itself is not a high explosive, when combined with an organic substance (also asserted to not be itself a high explosive), a high-explosive is created. To that T. Mark Hightower responds: “There is only one sure way to make nanothermite a high explosive. If you combine enough high explosives with nanothermite, you can get a mixture that is a high explosive. But the same can be said for my breakfast cereal.”

Hightower has further calculated that if conventional explosives (such as TNT or RDX) acting alone were used to bring down the Twin Towers, the quantity necessary would have been hundreds of tons of explosives per tower. On July 27, 2011, Niels  Harrit (chief author of the 2009 nanothermite paper) presented a calculation for how much thermitic material would have been necessary to explain the presence of the many tiny iron-rich spheres in the dust (assuming that a thermite reaction was the source of the spheres).

He gave a range of numbers, based on lower and higher concentrations of the thermite formulation. His lowest figure amounted to 29,000 metric tons of thermitic explosive per tower – a value hundreds of times greater than the calculation for conventional explosives. His “conservative” estimate (based on 10% iron-oxide in the thermitic material) was 143,000 metric tons of thermitic material that would have been placed in each tower. But let’s be realistic: How could the perpetrators drag in and plant over 100,000 tons of explosive without being seen? Even 29,000 tons is hard to imagine and would have been rather difficult to put in place unnoticed.

The Missing Element

A side note from the many technical papers on nanothermite studied by Hightower: nanothermite produces a blinding flash of light when it goes off. If such immense quantities of nanothermite were used to blow up the Twin Towers, then why didn’t we see tremendous bursts of blinding light all over those two buildings as they were destroyed and largely converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust?

The Dangers of a False Theory

 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which is led by Richard Gage, has been ceaselessly promoting the  nanothermite discovery as the “smoking gun” of 9/11, and calling the substance a “high explosive”. If there is  ever a proper investigation and a lawsuit is filed in a court of law on the “strength” of nanothermite as “hard  evidence” of controlled demolition by explosives at the World Trade Center and it is revealed to the court by the  opposing side that nanothermite is at best a very weak “explosive” and could not possibly have destroyed the  Twin Towers in seconds, the entire case would almost certainly be dismissed and a legal precedent set against  future efforts by others.
The danger of promoting a false theory or of overselling a weak hypothesis to millions of people is that it may someday be a convenient way to close the book on the entire issue. That 9/11 nanothermite advocates insist on their position in the face of significant refutations is disturbing. They are clearly unwilling to change their minds or even to discuss facts that expose weaknesses in their statements. What do these refusals really mean? Are some leaders deliberately pushing a flimsy theory with the intent that it will ultimately be shot down? Or is nanothermite a red herring or limited hangout to keep us from looking into what was really used?

The 9/11 Truth community can be confident in its refutations of the official account of 9/11 without having to present a “bullet-proof” alternate theory. It may well be that thermite/thermate/nanothermite was used in its familiar role as an incendiary (or “cutter charge”) in destroying the Twin Towers. But that is very different than to claim that it is a “high explosive” that could have destroyed those buildings. The 9/11 Truth movement must not commit itself to a feeble alternative, especially when an honest assessment of the empirical data for that theory does not support its applicability and actually refutes it.

From: JT
To: Greg from Houston Cc: Portland 9/11 Truth Alliance and Various other individuals
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: Woman loses job for speaking the truth

“Stephen Jones was fired for being a slack professor. Dr Jones also submarined cold fusion research. Question authority, especially when it pretends to be on your side.”

I wouldn’t care if Steven Jones was caught masturbating in his office.  What matters is his work concerning this subject.  It’s worth scrutinizing, however, vague attempts to smear the reputation of the messenger.

“A close analysis of the collpse videos of WTC7 reveals they are fake! Notice the black lines around the perimeter of the building?”

Of course.  It’s another important piece of evidence.  The establishment has nowhere to go with this video footage of WTC7’s collapse, so it must be impugned by people within the 9/11 Truth movement.  Lovely PR.

T. Mark Hightower starts out with a bad metaphor:

“Those who remember the 1995 O.J. Simpson trial will recall the gloves that turned out to be “too small” for O.J.’s hands when the long-awaited day of trying them on in the courtroom finally arrived. The blood-soaked gloves (one found at the crime scene and the other found outside O.J.’s house in Brentwood the morning after his former wife was murdered) were gloated over as “hard evidence” by the prosecution and the media, which is very comparable to how the discovery of unignited nanothermite chips in the WTC dust is considered to be “hard evidence” of the explosive demolition of the Twin Towers on September 11th, 2001.”

A fair question would be, “would a litigator include the evidence of remaining explosive residues in the dust as evidence of a controlled demolition?”

Of course.

Even if it does not complete the picture of everything used to achieve a controlled demolition?

Of course.  The bi-product of the substance found in the dust are droplets of molten iron found in all dust samples and confirmed by three different sources.

The idea of comparing the gloves to the dust samples is pretty dumb.

The relevance to their respective cases are different and the dust samples need merely to be added to the body of evidence as useful to the case for controlled demolition.   The idea that “if thermitic material is not the only explosive, then you must dismiss it as evidence” is absolute bullshit.

In addition, the blood-soaked gloves in the O.J. Simpson case represents one of a small pool of evidence available at the crime scene.  A crime scene that incorporated the most sophisticated, most expensive forensic lab work available hours after the crime was committed.   The 9/11 crime scene immediately begun shipping key evidence off of the premises in New York and there was no immediate forensic evaluation even when it was normal protocol to do so.  If the opportunity to test for explosives was taken,  then time-sensitive residues may have provided a bigger picture of the types of explosives used.

Despite the differences in these cases, the amount of evidence pointing to an inside job for 9/11 far surpasses the amount of evidence available at the time to convict O.J. That’s why the focus has turned towards denouncing other important pieces of evidence like videos of WTC7’s collapse.

“The more sophisticated believer might agree that conventional explosives also could have been employed, but for the scientifically less sophisticated 9/11 Truther, the “Thermite/Nanothermite Gospel” says it all – and has been “conclusively proven” by the nine authors of the 2009 published and peer-reviewed paper.”

I don’t really need to be advised about what a “sophisticated 9/11 Truther” might believe.   I’m more interested in sophisticated attempts to denounce the one detectible explosive substance in the in the WTC dust.  Most importantly, who is pushing it.

Love the fact Hightower makes the point of accommodating those who believe there were other explosives, then continues to condemn the “less sophisticated 9/11 Truther” as someone who will only believe that nanothermite is the sole explosive.  There lies the offense of the scientists pointing out what they detected in the dust!

“A side note from the many technical papers on nanothermite studied by Hightower: nanothermite produces a blinding flash of light when it goes off. If such immense quantities of nanothermite were used to blow up the Twin Towers, then why didn’t we see tremendous bursts of blinding light all over those two buildings as they were destroyed and largely converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust?”

It’s called opacity.  Like walls that cover what we see inside the buildings.

The rest of the details in Hightower’s article (accept for the laughable, tenuous connection to mini-nukes) are handily obliterated with this video by Jonathan Cole:

Jonathan Cole – 9/11: Thermate Debate –

Still looking for a response about abandoning an authentic criminal investigation and due process…


From:     Michael
    Subject:     [Portland911Truth] Re: Woman loses job for speaking the truth
    Date:     November 15, 2011 11:39:09 PM PST

To all new members and those of you who have been following this bickering that I have asked to please CEASE, IMMEDIATELY, DO NOT be conned by some of the authors of this email chain who have their entire being and petty ego’s wrapped up in their theory of what MAY have happened on 9/11 that brought the towers down in a controlled demolition fashion.
This is a tactic used to confuse and annoy you to the point that you lose interest in the entire subject.
The debate is centered around the most confusing aspects of the 9/11 fraud to get you to focus on that rather than the BLATANT FABRICATIONS AND LIES SUCH AS THE PENTAGON AND SHANKSVILLE, PA “CRASHES”, the 9/11 comission report/garbage, just to name a few.

I’ve said this MANY times…. none of us know until we OCCUPY THE PENTAGON AND DC. The methods used in the demolition of the 3 towers is worth debating, obviously, but the tone in which some use to do it is unacceptable and will no longer be tolerated. From this point on, a comment that is made that has the slightest bit of disrespect, will flag that member for removal from the group. This group and society as a whole is coming together against the federal corruption and injustices that are taking place all over the world and this group will be a part of that.

I want someone who thinks that a REAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION into the lies of 9/11, to tell me how it will actually come about? REALLY!!! It’s about as far-fetched as occupying DC but not out of the question. Presently, the universal tide is shifting in favor of humanity and light. WE MUST STAY UNITED! You are allowed to disagree but realize that YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED EITHER ON 9/11, SO GET OVER YOURSELF AND YOUR THEORY, BECAUSE THAT’S ALL IT IS AT THIS POINT! If you disagree with my previous statement, then just leave the group because you are ignorant and nobody wants you around keeping us and humanity from reaching higher levels of consciousness, which is what the TRUTH movement is really all about.

Things never change until the whole world rises up and reaches higher, which is happening now! Be a part of it. If you are passionate about 9/11 TRUTH, then wake people up to the ridiculous lies they have been told and admit to them that you don’t have ALL OF THE ANSWERS, but you know WHAT DIDN’T HAPPEN, AS WELL AS WHAT SHOULD’VE HAPPENED ON 9/11 SUCH AS NORAD, BUT DIDN’T or the DANCING ISRAELI’S, THE HUGE ISRAELI SPY NETWORK, ETC…. And at the very least, get people to stop being so gullible and start questioning the media and authority. Sheeple don’t wake up over night. Plant a seed and move on! And for God sake, become more aware of your own actions, communication and realize if you may be contributing to the divide and conquer strategy.

Please respond with tact if you feel the need to,
Michael Sullivan, founder of Portland 9/11 Truth on

On Nov 17, 2011, at 12:35 AM, Greg wrote:

Good points, Michael. If a new “investigation” were to hinge on nano-thermite, then all it would take to discredit us would be for the demolition contractor to say they used the stuff to clean up the debris! It is a great cutting agent for steel. Also, the article showed that nano-thermite has less explosive force than conventional demolition explosives. Just because someone acts like they are on your side, doesn’t mean they are. That’s how I got swindled out of my inheritances by my family.

Getting through to the dolts with their head in the sand about 9/11 is the hard part. That takes a min-nuke, LOL. Good luck to everyone and thanks for trying.

From: “J.T. Waldron”
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:34:18 -0800
To: Cc: sullivan michael; houston truth; Greg; reno gamble; ; ; ; ; ; ; ed al ge; ; ; oregontt
Subject: Re: Woman loses job for speaking the truth

“If a new “investigation” were to hinge on nano-thermite, then all it would take to discredit us would be for the demolition contractor to say they used the stuff to clean up the debris!”

O.K. Michael.   Your turn.  This time it is up to you to explain why this scenario wouldn’t go down the way your buddy in Houston suggests.  While you are at it, find out why he’s using the term “hinged” when nothing of the sort was implied.

You bought the Meetup leadership mantle as you declare at the end of your last temper tantrum.

Let’s see it.


    From:     Michael
    Subject:     Re: Woman loses job for speaking the truth
    Date:     November 17, 2011 10:03:33 AM PST
    Reply-To: Michael

Poor JT. You just don’t get it, do you? Or you are a complete agent, either way, I wish you a lot of luck in your journey. I want you to realize that it was nothing like a tempur tantrum, it was meant to be enlightening. If not an agent, you are PRECISELY the type I was writing about. As for “my buddy” in Houston, not sure who you are eluding to exactly, but when others present their theories, they do so in a logical, humble way… Like I said, they are THEORIES. None of us know, we must stay united. I’m sick of the negativity and the petty ego’s in society, which includes the Truth movement. How’s that for “my turn?”

Please just leave the group JT, don’t make me make me go through the blocking you process. Good luck and remember that its a spiritual journey.

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

    Subject:     [Portland911Truth] Re: Woman loses job for speaking the truth
    Date:     November 17, 2011 11:42:10 AM PST

The thread speaks for itself.  You either have an answer or you don’t.


    Subject:     You’ve been removed from Portland 9/11 Truth
    Date:     November 17, 2011 10:33:42 PM PST

You have been removed from Portland 9/11 Truth.

There are over 93,123 groups on Meetup with 1,048 groups near
Portland. You can join another Meetup Group and meet up with
real people who share your interests.

* Click here to see the 1,048 groups near Portland:

Best regards,
The Team at Meetup HQ>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services
Nov 292011
November 3, 2011
by Jeffrey Strahl

Dear Readers,

Please submit your comments on this article at the link at Amazon, here, as provided below by Mr. Strahl. published this article; the author is not available to be reached through email to this site. We look forward to reading your comments there. – Ed.

In mid-October 2011, I posted a review of David Ray Griffin’s new book, 9/11 Ten Years Later — When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed at Amazon, here.

[Related Info: David Ray Griffin’s Fake Phone Calls from the 9/11 Planes Theory Debunked Again]

This review drew comments from James B, one of the two top people at Screw Loose Change, a leading “debunking” website used as a reference by many an internet opponent of 9/11 truth. The result was a major debunking of Screw Loose Change. This piece is intended to help those who in the future will go up against the likes of Screw Loose Change, since the trap’s nature is both the content of the SLC argument as well as its form. The focus of our exchange was the evidence regarding events at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11, where three steel frame high-rises were destroyed. This is the part of my review which is relevant to the debate:

Being someone with an engineering degree, it’s no surprise that I find the strongest part to be Chapters 2 through 4, which deal with the three steel hi-rises which came down on 9/11. Chapter 2 has been posted previously on the web as an article, a challenge to left-leaning despisers of 9/11 truth to explain nine apparent miracles required to explain how the official story could be made congruent with the physical evidence. It is quite telling that none of the prominent left commentators mentioned have responded to this challenge. Not even the web “debunkers” such as Screw Loose Change have been able to explain how heat caused sudden onset failure, something which is impossible, given the nature of heat as heightened molecular activity which can only lead to gradual failure preceded by softening and sagging, in contrast to extreme cold (e.g. liquid nitrogen application) which sucks out energy from molecular activity, or of course demolition. None of them have been able to explain the presence of molten molybdenum and vaporized lead and steel, or even to make a coherent argument as to the presence of molten iron, even though NIST’s own investigators failed to find steel samples subjected to fires which were heated to the point at which structural steel loses 50% of its strength, 1112 deg F, let alone melt structural steel. In fact, hardly any of the samples even made it to 500 deg F. And there has been little response to WTC7 falling at free fall acceleration for at least 2.5 seconds, something NIST said was impossible, or the horizontal ejections of large steel beams, or any of the other key bits of evidence.

In Chapter 3, Griffin takes on Bill Moyers and Robert Parry and their complete failure to deal with the WTC evidence. In Chapter 4, he discusses the Building What campaign to publicize the facts behind WTC7. Debunkers should be challenged to explain all this material.

A bit of background regarding the presence of molten iron and molybdenum, and vaporized lead and steel in the WTC dust and debris: A steel beam recovered from WTC7, the third tower which was destroyed on 9/11, though not hit by a plane nor subject to a serious fire, was examined by a team of engineering professors from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, which identified the beam as being clearly from WTC7 due to the type of steel used. They found evidence of a eutectic reaction, i.e., the penetration of the beam’s steel by sulfur, which resulted in such severe erosion of the beam that the steel had holes in it. The presence of sulfur is itself a mystery, but so is the fact that this reaction required a temperature of 1,000 deg C (1,832 deg F), far in excess of what even NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), the government agency which carried out the official investigation of the WTC, stated was present. By the way, NIST stated air temperatures during the fires as if they were metal temperatures, when in fact it takes a long time for a fire of a certain temperature to heat steel to the same level, given the high thermal conductivity of steel. In addition, the steel was partially vaporized, a phenomenon which requires a temperature of 2,861 deg C (5,182 deg F). The report on this beam was included in the 2002 FEMA report on the WTC, the initial government investigation. But NIST’s 2008 report on WTC7, which noted the FEMA report and incorporated much of it, left out the part on the WPI investigation, and indeed stated that no steel was recovered from WTC7.

The dust created by the destruction of the WTC towers was analyzed by several different entities. One was the RJ Lee Group, a laboratory hired by Deutsche Bank, whose building’s roof had lots of this dust deposited on it. The bank wanted to demonstrate that the dust came from the WTC for insurance purposes. The investigation, which verified the WTC origin of the dust, found a large percentage of molten iron in the form of spheres, 5.87%, vs. 0.04% iron content in normal building dust. This “normal” iron content also does not take the form of spheres. Such a form requires steel/iron to be melted and tossed in the air, which as with all fluids results in the liquid drops taking a spherical shape to minimize surface tension. This led the investigators to conclude that the iron had melted during the event. The melting point of iron is 1,538 deg C (2,800 deg F). RJ Lee also found evidence of vaporized lead, which requires a temperature of 1,749 deg C (3,180 deg F). The dust was also investigated by the US Geological Survey (USGS), which also found the extremely high level of iron, and also discovered evidence of molten molybdenum, which requires a temperature of 2,623 deg C (4,753 deg F). This was not made public until a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit by a team of scientists forced the disclosure. In addition, there were numerous reports of large pools of molten iron/steel under the site of the WTC towers, lasting for weeks. NASA satellites detected extremely hot spots underground.

Screw Loose Change (SLC) has managed to come up with “explanations” for just about everything that happened on 9/11, both the physical evidence and other. Most of these make no sense. Some are absolutely laughable. Those who would rather deny the fact that 9/11 was an inside job are OK with any explanation which appears to confirm their “skepticism,” and gladly grasp onto anything, however spurious, offered as “9/11 truth debunking.” But SLC has been totally silent, or at least evasive, regarding the evidence for molten and/or vaporized metals. I believe this is because this evidence is the Achilles heel of the official story.

Without knowing a full inventory of the weapons in the arsenal of the US armed forces, including special operations units and the CIA, and without having full access to the evidence, one cannot reach a complete conclusion as to what created such high temperatures. Nanothermite was indeed detected in ample amounts in the WTC dust, but it may not represent the full story. This is why I avoid attributing the evidence to any particular weapon. Such attribution is unnecessary. We do know that only three possible explanations are possible: volcanic activity, proximity to a hot star like the sun, and explosives and/or incendiary devices. The first two causes can be ruled out. By deductive reasoning, this leaves us with the third, however much we may not like the conclusion.

Links to the information I have provided can be found at the following two articles by David Ray Griffin: “The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven,” September 14, 2009, and “Left Leaning Despisers of 9/11 Truth: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?,” July 6, 2010.

What follows is the exchange, with some of my comments in brackets. I left out comments by others. I tried to keep the original exchange as complete as possible so one can get its full flavor. Some readers may wonder why all the repetitions have been kept intact. I’m doing so because leaving them in demonstrates how James B. and Screw Loose Change evade questions, repeatedly bring up arguments that have already been discredited in the specific debate, and attempt the same lying via quoting out of context and false attribution.

This is intended to help those who in the future will go up against the likes of Screw Loose Change, since the trap’s nature is both the content of the SLC argument as well as its form. I edited down repeat quotations by both myself as well as James B, leaving them in full only where these quotes are necessary for context. I also left out most of my “trapped rat” remarks, which are OK in the context of the debate, but need not be repeated as often. The full exchange can, of course, be viewed at the Amazon review; the URL is provided at the very beginning of this article.

To offer feedback on this piece, please click the Amazon review URL and post comments there. Please make note if you are doing so as a result of reading this piece at, and be sure to quote sections relevant to your comment, as appropriate.

James B says:

“Not even the web “debunkers” such as Screw Loose Change….. or of course demolition.”

But it was a gradual collapse. If you read the NIST reports there are numerous photos showing the sagging trusses pulling the perimeter beams in. FDNY helicopters reported seeing the tops of the buildings start to sag minutes before the collapse. FDNY personnel at WTC7 detected the building leaning and making creaking noises hours before it collapsed. Why do you ignore all of this?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Fantasies. A “leaning” building does not fall down in perfect symmetry. NIST in fact did not in its report show any fires persisting more than a couple of hours in any part of WTC7. Videos do not show any of the towers with “sagging tops.” For an actual case of what happens to a hi-rise overwhelmed by fire, see the Windsor Building in Madrid, about the same size as WTC7, burned for 24 hours, had some floors collapse, it demonstrated visible sagging, but it did not fall. “Gradual collapse” takes hours, not even a few minutes, pieces of the towers weren’t falling off, one second the buildings were still, the next second they were going down.

And you have not explained in the least the presence of molten iron, molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, vaporized steel. Don’t expect any help from Screw Loose Change on that.

The fires in all three buildings were asymmetric. This would result in asymmetric damage. Asymmetric damage cannot cause a symmetric collapse, simply physics. This is why demolition is a careful process, it’s very hard to bring down a structure symmetrically.

Fact is, the steel samples NIST examined showed hardly any of them reached even 250 deg C (482 F), none reached the point (600 C, 1112 F) at which steel loses half its strength. The fires in WTC2 were so weak they were near going out when the building fell, two fire crews reported being able to easily take care of them on radio right before the destruction. People walked down past the impact zone without experiencing an inferno.

And why don’t you explain the WTC7 free fall while you’re at it? Or horizontal ejections? Or the tops of the two main towers being shredded at the very beginning of each destruction, precluding their acting as “pile drivers,” the core of the official story? If you’re planning a long process of nit-picking, it won’t work.
And you have not explained in the least the presence of molten iron, molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, vaporized steel.

James B. Says:
“Fact is, the steel samples NIST examined ….. so weak they were near going out “

Uhh, which is it? You can’t keep a coherent narrative for two paragraphs.
[This is very typical of how SLC deals with questions on its website, trying to insult the intelligence of anyone who diverges from its correct line, which is the official story]

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

No, it is you who cannot read. NIST examined samples of structural steel which showed fire damage, as i stated in the review. The fact that these samples didn’t reach high temperatures at all, even for building fires, demonstrates that the fires didn’t get all that hot, which makes the presence of the molten and vaporized metals even more of a blatant contradiction of the official story. The hottest possible hydrocarbon fires, under prime conditions (isolation, carefully regulated fuel supply, forcing of pressurized air) wouldn’t be able to come up with the temperatures necessary to account for the molten/vaporized metals, but in fact these fires weren’t even hot hydrocarbon fires. It’s clear that something else caused those metals to melt or vaporize.

James B. Says:

Dude, either temperatures got that hot, or they didn’t. You are proposing some Schroedinger’s cat scenario where temperatures did not get above 250 degrees, but were somehow above 3000. So either NIST was wrong (or you are misquoting them, which you actually are, but I will skip that topic for the moment because it is fun screwing with idiots) or temperatures did not reach as hot as you are claiming. It can’t be both.
[This is a common tactic of “debunkers,” and even of some who call themselves “9/11 truth activists” who contend the WTC was not brought down by demolition. They attempt to respond to this contradiction by making it seem as if “truthers” are trying to have it both ways, have temperatures be fairly low and quite high at the same time. It’s an attempt to obfuscate.]

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

No, you are either thick beyond belief or you are just trying to troll and are desperate. “Temperatures” in the abstract isn’t the question here. The fire temperatures and fires-caused steel temperatures is one thing, whereas temperatures required to explain the molten/vaporized metals is totally another. The fires did not heat the vast majority (98%) of inspected fire-affected steel to 250 deg C (482 F), and none of it to the point where steel softens significantly (50% loss of strength), which is 600 deg C (1112 F). Yet there is evidence of molten and vaporized metals which require temps of 2800 deg F (molten iron), 3100+ deg F (vaporized lead), 4700+ deg F (molten molybdenum) and over 5000 deg F (vaporized steel). This evidence can therefore not be accounted for by the fires which erupted due to the plane impacts. Something else besides the fires melted and/or vaporized those metals. Surely this would be easy to understand even for someone with no science or math beyond 7th grade.

If someone traveled between two spots at a rate which suggested they had to move at over 1000 mph, and they allegedly did so by a car, and the car shows no evidence of being able to travel faster than 120 mph, and in fact no evidence it even reached 60 mph, there is no Schroedinger’s cat scenario, they simply didn’t travel with that car.

And do prove the “misquote,” if you dare, the numbers are out of the NIST report. See

James B. Says:

No, this happens because the average Truther has the reading comprehension of an overcaffeinated Chihuahua. NIST did not say that the beams were not heated above 250 degrees, but that the beams which had enough paint on them to be identified as having come from the targeted area were not heated above 250 degrees. Any beams heated above that temperature did not have paint, thus they could not identify where they came from.

This Truther logic is kind of like saying that the police interviewed the survivors from a mass shootings, and none of the survivors reported that they were fatally shot, therefore nobody died.

“It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core.”

From the NIST report. You might want to try and read it.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

First of all, what temperatures the fires heated the steel to is irrelevant to the core argument i challenged you with. Not even NIST claims that the fires were hotter than some 1400 deg F (which does not directly translate to metal temperatures, see below). And even this temperature would still make it impossible to explain the molten/vaporized metals as being the result of these fires. Using the car analogy from above, even if you can prove the car did travel at 120 mph, that would still not explain how the person could have traveled between two points in such time as to have required a speed of 1000 mph. Nothing can explain such temperatures except explosive and/or incendiary devices.

NIST pleading the small size of the samples is like a guy murdering his parents and then pleading for mercy on the basis that he’s an orphan. It was the decision of the US government together with the city government of New York to destroy almost all the structural steel except for these few samples, to ship it all off to China in violation of city, state and national arson laws, in the face of loud protests by Fire Engineering Magazine and other professional organizations.

NIST has no material evidence of steel heated to over 600 deg C., indeed hardly any of steel heated above 250 C. Its conclusion that steel was heated above that point is strictly the result of mathematical models, and we know thanks to whisteblowing that these models were tortured, manipulated to create such temperatures. NIST of course refuses to provide details of its models. We do know how NIST’s video model of its WTC7 report is totally at odds with actual videos of WTC7’s fall,
NIST also has tried confounding air temperatures during the fires and steel temperatures, as if structural steel doesn’t conduct away heat very efficiently, as if it doesn’t take a long time to heat steel, as if the fires were really that hot for very long, as if the fires actually lasted a long time at all.

But again, the key point is that the fires can in no way explain the molten/vaporized metals evidence. This is why Screw Loose Change has avoided the question.

James B. Says:

You claim it was heated above 3000. Make up your freaking mind. Your lack of comprehension is not my problem.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

It was quite clear that i was talking about steel heated by fires, not of steel in general. Indeed, NIST has no material evidence of steel heated by fires to over 600 deg C (1112 F), and hardly any of steel heated by fires to over 250 deg C (482 F). And yet, there is evidence of molten structural steel/iron, vaporized lead, molten molybdenum, and vaporized steel. These require respectively temps of around 2800 F, 3100+ F, 4700+ F and over 5000 F. And i suspect you comprehend this perfectly well, but are simply trying to obfuscate matters and change the topic so you won’t have to explain the molten/vaporized metals.

NIST knew perfectly well about a steel beam from WTC7 which showed evidence of sulfidation, with holes in it, investigated by a team from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, reported on in the FEMA 2002 report on the WTC and discussed even in the New York Times. The team knew this beam was from WTC7 and stated so, having recognized the signature of the WTC7 steel. Yet NIST’s report on WTC7 claimed no steel was recovered from the structure, thus avoiding discussing this beam, which showed evidence of vaporization as well.

You are trying to avoid dealing with the molten/vaporized metals, Screw Loose Change has consistently done so. This is a clear signal that it cannot deal with this evidence, and hopes it goes away. It won’t. I’ll keep reminding readers that you are unable to deal with it.

James B says:

Actually we have done dozens, if not hundreds of stories on supermagiconanothermite, to the point that I got tired of discussing the subject. It is a magical amorphous subject which to Truthers can have any properties. It is an explosive, it is an incendiary, it can be painted on, it is invisible, it is fire resistant, it is undetectable by any known means! Arguing it with Truthers is kind of like arguing the properties of unicorn horns with a Harry Potter fan.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

You are once again trying to change the topic, it won’t work. Fact is, there was evidence of molten structural steel/iron, vaporized lead, molten molybdenum, and vaporized steel. These require respectively temperatures of around 2800 deg F, 3100+ F, 4700+ F and over 5000 F. All these temperatures are way in excess of any possible temperatures achievable in hydrocarbon fires (as in the fires which erupted in the buildings after the plane impacts, or in WTC7 supposedly due to debris from WTC1), let alone the temperatures that were actually observed in any of the steel samples examined by NIST. The melting and/or vaporizing of the metals was not the result of the fires, but of something else, and there is no logical alternative to the cause being explosive and/or incendiary devices. NIST knew of the evidence for these molten/vaporized metals, but avoided the question. And you are doing the same.

James B, you are like a rat caught in a trap which continues to bare its teeth and act as if it’s capable of inflicting damage, fully knowing it cannot move. You will try to talk about everything, including the kitchen sink, in trying to avoid dealing with this, but you won’t succeed. You are trapped. It is inevitable that when you defend a story full of holes, you will eventually fall into one of the holes.

James B says:

I think it was ground up unicorn horns. They are known to burn at high temperatures.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

It’s fun to watch the rat squirm and squeal and otherwise try to pretend it isn’t hopelessly trapped. The more the rat does this, the tighter the trap’s grip.

I have long told people that Screw Loose Change’s obvious evasion of the molten/vaporized metals evidence shows the best thing to hit them with. Great to finally do so and watch them ground to a halt. Screw Loose Change is finished. My advice to them: shut down the site, open a new one under new names, this way they will able to get away with what they’ve been doing for a bit longer, till they’re exposed again.

We could of course start talking about other stuff which will act as a trap for them, like WTC7 free fall. But it’s too much fun watching them squirm.

James B says:

Uhh yeah, because I run my blog, and even my life based on the ignorant comments of random people on the Internet… Oh yes, you have caught me, if you keep us this cunning game the Truth movement will continue its 10 year success of accomplishing absolutely nothing other than breaking up marriages and embarrassing itself in front of relatives.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Watch the rat really squirm and squeal even louder as the trap holding it is lowered into a bucket full of water. It’s obvious you have nothing to say to counter the molten/vaporized metals evidence. Even your joke about the unicorn horns was recycled, you wheeled it out months ago on your blog in an attempt to respond to a question about molten molybdenum, which you never responded to. At Screw Loose Change, you were able to get away with not answering. Here you won’t. The world’s watching. Screw Loose Change stands exposed as fraud.
James B says:

The world is watching? Dude, there are like 3 people commenting on this thread, and you and I are 2 of them. Have delusions of grandeur much?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

A lot of people read this without commenting. And everyone who reads this or hears about it will find out that Screw Loose Change is totally tongue-tied when it comes to the evidence of molten/vaporized metals.

James B. Says:

Oh yes, I am well aware of Truther JAQing off, where you Just Ask Questions, without having to actually take a stand on anything, thus they can conveniently never be wrong! It is not science, science involves making falsifiable claims, it is religion.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

More squealing from the trapped rat. The points at which metals melt or vaporize are known facts, and this is hard core science. The temperatures required for these are far above anything remotely possible with hydrocarbon fires. No way to produce such temperatures without direct human intervention, barring a volcano which somehow remained undetected by everybody, or a star like the sun approaching the WTC site.
The only possible explanation for this molten/vaporized metals evidence is the use of explosive and/or incendiary devices. Any such evidence at a scene of a fire would normally require an investigation for explosives or accelerants, per the national fire protection code. This is a firm scientific conclusion. I won’t accuse you of “religion,” you are simply trying to evade dealing with evidence which you obviously cannot deal with.

James B says:

Yes, I am well aware of Harrit’s “science” in which he made the shocking discovery of finding rust and aluminum in the debris from a collapsed building. He then paid $800 to some online journal based out of Pakistan to get his paper published in such a sloppy process that the editor of said journal was not even aware of the paper and resigned in protest after the fact. That is what you call “science”.

And yes, normally you would look for sign of accelerants, if you didn’t know what caused the fire. In this case even the most dimwitted observer can figure out that the fire was caused by a jetliner crashing into both of the buildings. It was in the all papers.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

This is not an actual rat trap, but a virtual one. Unlike with a real trap, the rat can actually leave any time. But at the same time, every time it comes back, it ends up trapped as tightly as it was when it left. A real rat which managed to escape a trap wouldn’t return to it, but then we know that rats are smarter than some people. This virtual trap is in fact what a cat would design, as this way it can torture the rat forever without having it die, ending the fun.

James B talks of “religion.” Given that he believes in some miracles, including the presence of molten and/or vaporized metals without apparent reason, he is the one relying upon religion, a mystical belief in the official conspiracy story.

“And yes, normally you would look for sign of accelerants, It was in the all papers.”

So we see on TV someone getting punched in the face. An hour later, his head explodes. A dimwitted observer like James can figure out that the head exploded because of the punch. A more intelligent observer would inquire whether there’s any evidence that the victim was shot in the head by something. An independent investigator has found bullet fragments in the brain. The dimwitted observer insists that these fragments mean nothing, in fact refuses to explain them.
Again, the fires caused by the plane impacts could not have caused metals to melt and/or vaporize. The finding of such evidence should have led investigators to inquire why it was present. The guidelines clearly state that evidence of molten (let alone vaporized) metals should lead to investigation, since the apparent causes *may not provide a full explanation.* In fact, they may have had nothing to to with what happened.
You keep trying to change the topic to the fires. Forget it, you’ve been trapped. The fires cannot explain this evidence. And neither can you. So keep squealing, it’s fun to watch.

James B. Says:

Once again, you claim that NIST said that they found no evidence of beams being heated over 250 degrees. Additionally none of the thousands of firemen, police officers, demolition contractors, FEMA workers, NIST investigators or FBI agents found any signs of the use of explosives such as detonators, triggering devices, shaped charges, det cord, nor were there any recordings of the effects of these massive explosions such as warped metal or deafening explosions which should blow out every window within blocks. How can they respond to evidence which you say they did not find?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

You are again trying to change the conversation. The evidence in discussion here is the evidence of the presence of molten/vaporized metals. Given the temperatures necessary to melt and/or vaporize these metals are FAR higher than anything remotely achievable via the hottest possible hydrocarbon fires, and the absence of either a volcano or a nearby hot star, only explosives and/or incendiary devices could have been responsible for the presence of these molten/vaporized metals. Do you dare deny the existence of this evidence?

As for your totally false assertions above.
” they found no evidence of beams being heated over 250 degrees.” I have in fact repeatedly stated in this regard that this refers to heating *by the fires.* As for signs of the use of explosives, none of the investigators looked for such evidence, after all as a NIST spokesperson said that they knew it wasn’t there, so why bother looking.

But this is besides the point here. There is indeed lots of evidence for molten/vaporized metals. You haven’t been able in the least to explain this evidence, in fact you keep trying your hardest to not deal with it, to shift the conversation. It won’t work. Your further squirming will only tighten the trap.

James B says:

The whole site was looked through with a fine tooth comb. They trucked all the debris out to Fresh Kills where the FBI literally sifted through it, pulling out remains and such. Somehow they missed all that det cord. I have seen thermite used in military grenades. Aside from the fact that it is not used in building demolitions, it produces very distinctive marks. As do shaped charges (aside from the unmistakably loud boom). There is no way thousands of first responders could have missed these distinctive signs on thousands of beams. One beam which was sulfidized in a eutectic reaction, which in no way was related to the actual collapse of the building, does not a controlled demolition make.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Your claim that the sulfidized beam due to a eutectic reaction is “not related to the actual collapse of the building” is an assertion not backed by anything. There is also the fact that NIST failed to mention it and instead claimed that no steel was recovered from WTC7, when the team investigating this beam stated that it was easy to tag as being from WTC7. And there is no mention of the temperature required for such a reaction, far higher than any fire temperatures claimed even by NIST. Nor is there a mention of the fact that this beam was “partially vaporized.”

And besides, this beam is not the only evidence of molten/vaporized metals, far from it. Again, the squealing trapped rat tries to shift the conversation away from the topic at hand. Let us remind him and anyone who might be fooled by him what this topic is: the presence in the dust and site debris of molten and vaporized steel/iron, vaporized lead, and molten molybdenum. These require temperatures far in excess of what hydrocarbon fires are capable of producing. James has totally failed to address this or even acknowledge it.

James B. Says:

Dude, it is in the FEMA report. You are basing your argument off of it, have you even bothered to read it? The temperatures required are much lower than you claim. Well within the reach of an normal office fire, much less one resulting from two airplane crashes.

“It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occurred in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel from WTC 7. It is possible and likely, however, that even if grain boundary melting did not occur, substantial penetration by a solid state diffusion mechanism would have occurred as evidenced by the high concentration of sulfides in the grain interiors near the oxide layer. Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700-800 �C (1,290-1,470 �F).”

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Nice try, James B. You left out certain parts of that report.

“Summary for Sample 1
The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 �C (1,800 �F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel….”
This is closely followed by
“The larger sulfides further into the steel are the more stable manganese sulfides that were formed when the steel was made. The smaller sulfides that have formed as a result of the fire do not contain significant amounts of manganese, but rather are primarily sulfides containing iron and copper. These sulfides have a lower melting temperature range than manganese sulfide. (Here is where your quote starts) It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occurred in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel from WTC 7. It is possible and likely, however, that even if grain boundary melting did not occur, substantial penetration by a solid state diffusion mechanism would have occurred as evidenced by the high concentration of sulfides in the grain interiors near the oxide layer. Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700-800 �C (1,290-1,470 �F).”
So the temperature you are trying to pass off actually applies to one region of the steel, the inner part. The outer part required a temperature of 1000 deg C (1800 deg F) for the evidence to be explained, far higher than anything even NIST claims. Not to mention that what NIST passes off as steel temperatures are actually air temperatures due to the fires, it takes a while to heat steel to such temperatures due to its conductivity. You must be a used car salesman.
Best of all, James B, *you totally fail to explain the partial vaporization reported not only by the Worcester Poly team but also by Dr Astaneh-Asl of UC Berkeley. This requires a temperature of 5182 deg F. *
And why did NIST totally leave out this part of the FEMA report, and state that no steel was recovered from WTC7, when the Worcester team stated that this beam was clearly from WTC7 due to the steel used to make it?!!!!

You also fail to account for the nearly 6% molten iron spheres content of the WTC dust, or for vaporized lead or for molten molybdenum. Squeal, squeal, trapped rat. Every time you come back, the trap will be as tight.

James B says:

Aww, Truther “anomaly hunting” whereby Truthers take any perceived anomaly or unexplained phenomenon and use that as a license to create the most elaborate speculative explanation, regardless of whether it is inconsistent or even possible. “Hey, what are my keys doing on the dresser? I know I left them in my coat pocket. The only explanation must be that time travelling gnomes using their cloaking shields snuck into my house and stole my keys, used them to play pranks on people and then replaced them without being seen. But I am too smart for them!”

I am reading Michael Shermer’s the Believing Brain, which explains why otherwise intelligent people believe in things like ghosts, faeries, homeopathy and 9/11 conspiracy theories. You guys might want to read it sometime.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

James B.: You are apparently not very bright, coming back into a situation in which you were caught in an outright lie. You quoted the FEMA report out of context, making it seem as if the steel beam examined by the WPI team was subject to temperatures of “only” 700-800 deg C (as if such temps were present anyway), when in fact the full quote shows otherwise.

If someone is reading this and doesn’t understand what you did, i’ll provide them with another example. Someone (call him/her A) says “It’s horrible that even in the 1950s, there were people who thought lynching is a good thing.” James B would then accuse A of being a racist and present a “quote” in which he/she states “lynching is a good thing.” You are a shameless liar, James B.

Of course, it’s understandable. You have been caught like a trapped rat, unable to explain evidence of molten/vaporized metals, which would require temperatures FAR, FAR in excess of anything even NIST claimed were present, let alone anything for which there is evidence that the fires caused. This would obviously require explosives and/or incendiary devices, since there are no volcanos or hot sun-like stars in the area. It is not an “unexplained phenomenon.” So, unable to explain it off, even with a nonsensical pseudo-explanation, you resort to prattling about Shermer’s BS and all sorts of other stuff. That’s nothing more than the squealing of a trapped rat. By the way, Shermer is a proven liar regarding 9/11, just like you.

(Edit to add this URL regarding Michael Shermer’s record of lying and fraud,

James B says:

Whether sulfidation required 800 degrees or 1000 is irrelevant. Both are well within the range of temperatures produced by even a common housefire, much less a major fire produced by crashing jetliners. Yes, I understand Truthers don’t like Shermer. I have even seen them heckle him at a book signing. Rationalism is to truthers like garlic to a vampire.

James B says:

And it is hilarious that you are citing Dr Astaneh-Asl as supporting your theories, considering he has been one of the leading proponents of the NIST explanation of the collapses. You get someone with his qualifications on your side, instead of theologians and failed designers of mini-malls like Richard Gage, and I will start to take you seriously.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Shameless lying and squealing by the trapped rat. 1000 deg F, 1832 deg F, is 4-600 degrees F above any temperature claimed even by NIST, whose claims are totally unproven. Hydrocarbon fires cannot achieve such temperatures (1800) except under carefully controlled environments, i.e. insulation, air injection,….. Even 12-1400 deg F fires require mixing and fuel supply conditions that are/were not present in the WTC fires. The claim that this can happen in common housefires is comedy. But besides, the beam was partially vaporized, *required a temp of over 5100 deg F,* as i pointed to you earlier, which you are still evading. And reading the link i provided shows how little credibility Shermer has.

James B says:

NIST was only concerned about the temperatures leading up to the collapse. The fires burned for weeks, it is entirely expected that at some point the temperatures would reach higher levels. There are plenty of studies showing higher temperatures during common building fires. 5100 is above the temperatures produced even by thermite, so assuming that these are even correct observations, your magical thermite argument does not work anyway.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

The vaporization citation came not only from Astaneh-Asl, but from the WPI team. You’re squealing some more, trapped rat.
AE911 Truth has on its team structural engineers, including some who have their own companies, even people with demolition experience. They include the designer of the PGE building in downtown San Francisco and the architect of Transamerica Pyramid, also in SF. Lots of lots of experience, unlike your total illiteracy in engineering. Astaneh-Asl by the way also complained of the destruction of the evidence. The new video Explosive Testimonies features lots of these people. By the way, there is zero evidence that Richard Gage is a “failed designer,” but the claim that there are no structural experts on my side is 100% bogus.
So you quoted from the FEMA report trying to make it look like the sulfidized beam resulted from a temp of under 800 deg C. Then when you got caught you claim that 1000 deg C is not that different. So why did you leave out so much of that quote, trying to make it seem as if the temps required were lower?
And you left out the fact that the beam came from WTC7, as noted by FEMA, yet NIST claimed that no steel was recovered from WTC7.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

More squealing by the trapped rat. Where did i make a “magical thermite argument”? I never mentioned thermite, aside from quoting your garbage claims. It is not at all expected that the fires would keep burning hot, as the jet fuel burned within a few minutes, and building materials do not support fires which create anywhere near the temperature of burning jet fuel. The persistence of extreme heat under the WTC site for weeks is in fact a total anomaly if one accepts the official account, given the lack of both oxygen and fuel for such fires. Show us studies of temps of 1000 deg C during common fires, if you dare.

And what’s this “assuming that these are correct observations”? The iron spheres composing almost 6% of the WTC dust is in the evidence, so is vaporized lead, molten molybdenum and vaporized steel. More desperate thrashing by the trapped rat.

James B says:

“The new video Explosive Testimonies features lots of these people.”

Ooh, goodie gumdrops for you. And everyone knows that YouTube editorials are the way “real science” is done. When shall I expect all of their peer-reviewed studies explaining how supermagiconanothermite blew up the World Trade Centers?

James B says:

“Where did i make a “magical thermite argument”? I never mentioned thermite, aside from quoting your garbage claims.”

Well that is the primary theory proposed by AE911truth and Mr. Harrit, who commented below, all of whom apparently you support. If they are wrong, perhaps you should let them know? What do you think caused all of these anomalies you are complaining about? C-4. HMX? Nuclear Weapons? Star Wars Death Beams? You claim to be the expert, while I am just an uninformed commentor, take a stand.

James B says:

Of course there were molten metals at the WTC. That is a common sight at any major fire. All sorts of crap melts when it gets hot.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

First of all, you don’t in the least apologize for falsely attributing something to me, the same false attribution you have done earlier. This goes along with your quoting the FEMA report out of context, and when quote pretending that it doesn’t matter anyway.
I don’t know what caused those metals to melt and/or vaporize. I don’t have access to the files of the Pentagon’s secret weapons programs. But it is clear that the temperatures required for these results are far in excess of any fires, and they are not the result of a volcano or a nearby hot star. Hence, by deductive reasoning, they can only be explained as the result of the use of explosives and/or incendiary devices. If you see someone’s head explode to dust sized particles an hour after being punched in the face, you know it’s neither the result of the punch nor of spontaneous combustion, but of some weapon, whether you know or don’t know what the weapon is.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

“Of course there were molten metals at the WTC. That is a common sight at any major fire. All sorts of crap melts when it gets hot.”

So you are saying temperatures hot enough to melt steel (almost 2800 deg F)occur at every major fire? Temperature hot enough to vaporize lead (over 3100 F)? To melt molybdenum (over 4700 F)? To vaporize steel (over 5100 F)? Your squeals are turning downright screechy. The trap gets ever tighter.

James B says:

LOL OK, sorry dude. It wasn’t supermagicthermite, it was some unnamed supersekrit Pentagon weapon instead. My bad!

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

In other words, James B., you cannot explain the high temperatures required. Keep thrashing and squealing, trapped rat.

James B says:

You can’t either! Saying it was some super secret magic invisible Pentagon weapon is no more scientific a theory than me claiming it was powdered unicorn horn.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Wrong. I stated it was an explosive and/or incendiary device. It certainly wasn’t fire, nor a volcano, nor a star. This is called “deductive reasoning,” James, see the analogy of the exploding head. That’s solid science.

James B says:

No, the scientific method requires that claims be repeatable, testable and falsifiable. Making vague claims about mythical and amorphous military explosives and/or incendiaries is neither.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Being someone with an engineering degree, i know perfectly well about the scientific method, which by the way excludes quoting out of context and false attribution, something you’ve repeatedly done here. In fact, i have doubts about your science credentials.

It is a scientific fact that temperatures like those necessary to explain the molten/vaporized metals evidence are attainable only via special tools, explosives and/or incendiary devices, volcanos, or close proximity to an active star (which is of course a thermonuclear reaction). Volcanos and stars are ruled out, unless you wish to claim one of these was present without gaining notice. Special tools could possibly account only for molten iron, and certainly not in the quantity detected in the WTC dust (5.87%). And they cannot account for vaporized lead, molten molybdenum and vaporized steel. Hence, by deduction, only one choice is left.

Same with the video of the person whose head is seen exploding into tiny dust size pieces an hour after a punch to the face. One doesn’t need to know what weapon was used to know that this was the result of the use of some weapon. A trained medic can tell that a wound is a gunshot without knowing what weapon was used.

James B says:

Uhh, dude, explosives don’t vaporize metals. They aren’t even particularly hot, just fast reacting. May not be a scientist, but I am retired army.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Then you learned very little in the army. My brother was an officer in the Corps of Engineers. If you’re talking conventional explosives, you are right, but that’s hardly all the explosives available, even per public knowledge.

And the secret research programs have an even wider “menu” to choose from. Most people in the army don’t know what’s going on there, you need a security clearance for that, and if you talk about what you know to unauthorized people, your pubic area would be subjected to hot sulfuric acid. If you were in that program, why, i’m sure you’d tell us everything. Ha, ha!!

A real rat knows better than to keep coming back to the same trap, and even worse, to get itself trapped even more with each visit. Now you’ve admitted to not being a scientist. And yet you’ve attacked the science credentials of all sorts of people. Well, doesn’t take a scientist to understand that the temperatures required for molten/vaporized metals are possible as a result of only a very few plausible causes, and that once all of them except one are ruled out, the one remaining is the only explanation possible, regardless of how distasteful the conclusion may be.

James B says:

Oh yes, those mythical super secret weapons, just like the hidden anti-aircraft missiles at the Pentagon and David Ray Griffin’s voice morphing devices from Terminator 2. I think they used one of those laser cutting devices I saw in Mission Impossible. Isn’t baseless speculation fun? Remember, everything in real life is just like the movies.
Do you think this post adds to the discussion?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

More squealing and thrashing from the trapped rat. Right, there are no secret weapons programs.

Fact is, deductive reasoning is part of the scientific method. Applying deductive reasoning to the evidence of molten/vaporized metals, ruling out a volcano and a nearby hot star, only explosives and/or incendiary devices can account for the temperatures necessary to explain this evidence. And with each return to this trap, you are trapped ever tighter. You have two choices: leave this debate in humiliation, or keep returning and get further entrapped by getting caught in new lies. You’ve already been caught quoting out of context and making the same false attribution twice, the second time after being informed and acknowledging it. Each time you come back, your credibility is shredded even further.

James B says:

I am sure there are, but using that as an excuse to make accusations is hardly scientific. In the evolution/Intelligent Design argument this is known as the “God of the Gaps”, where the ID’ers use any real or perceived unexplained issue in biology to say “well, then the only explanation is that God did it”. While this is theoretically possible, it is hardly scientific. The Holocaust deniers do the same thing with their “No holes no Holocaust” argument. Science is about providing a falsifiable theory which better fits observations than the alternative, not just pointing out perceived anomalies and attributing them to mythical secret weapons or unseen deities.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

I did not attribute them to any specific weapon, mythical or not, or to deities, seen or not. The only reasons that metals melt or get vaporized is extremely high temperatures. I already listed the temperatures required to create the evidence which was seen. There are only three causes of such high temperatures: explosives and/or incendiary devices (including but not limited to nuclear weapons), volcanos, and proximity to hot stars. The last two are ruled out, which leaves only the first.

The analogy with an unexplained issue biology is completely false, as the information regarding this issue is incomplete. The analogy with Holocaust deniers is completely nonsensical, i have no idea what “No holes” means, i doubt anyone else does, including you. And there is a huge amount of evidence for the Holocaust. On the other hand, there are only three alternative explanations for temperatures of 2800 to 5100 deg F. Two of them are ruled out, which leaves only one, regardless of whether you like it or not.

Again, an observation of someone’s head blowing up into dust sized particles an hour after being punched can be deduced to be the result of the firing of a particular weapon at their head, whether that weapon is known or not. A wound can be ascertained by a trained observer to be the result of a gunshot, regardless of the specific weapon used. Your insistence that the weapon be identified is nonsensical, especially given the number of unknown (to the general public) weapons in the arsenal. And sure, there are no secret programs, the US never had a huge secret project to develop the A-bomb.

Unless you can come up with another cause for the temperatures required to explain molten/vaporized metals, you have just caused the trap to tighten some more.

James B says:

It is a reference to your old buddy Michael Shermer.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

I posted earlier a review of Shermer’s article in Scientific American “debunking” 9/11 truth.
You can read his advancing of the “pancaking” explanation of the WTC destruction, right as NIST was renouncing the theory as being without evidence. You got good buddies, James.

And you have yet to answer to being quote with deliberate quoting out of context, and deliberate false attribution. Your believability is noted in its total absence.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

And i looked at the Shirmer article. The lack of holes in the roof of the gas chamber does not preclude gas coming in from a different direction. But the presence of molten/vaporized metals has only three possible causes, and two of them are out of the question.

And Shirmer continues the same crap as in the SciAm article i posted a link to the critique of, of making it seem as if “truthers” are claiming that the official story is false because the fires couldn’t melt the structural steel. It was in fact the first version of the official story (which is now on its fourth version) which explained what happened as a result of the fires melting the steel structure, as pointed out in the critique. The critique and many analyses since also point out the impossibility of all versions of the official story which rely upon the steel being weakened. The four different versions of the official story contradict each other, and are each contradicted by the facts of the evidence. It’s quite amazing that some defenders of the official story are still peddling versions which have been discarded by the official purveyors, while others have gone along with the extreme changes in the story without batting an eye. It’s easy to conform, takes zero brains. Straight out of Nineteen Eighty Four.

James B says:

I didn’t take anything out of context. You were the one who repeatedly claimed that NIST said that the beams were not heated over 250 degrees, omitting the fact that they specifically said those were not representative of all the beams.

I would agree that Shermer is not an expert on 9/11 issues. He hasn’t wasted much time taking on you idiots. Unfortunately I have. His work on skepticism and belief systems in general though is quite good.

As far as “molten metal” you are doing just like the other cranks and ignoring other possible answers and instead relying on the supernatural. Go to the hardware store, buy some steel wool and a 9-volt battery. Touch them together. The steel wool will spark, melt, and burn. No volcanoes, thermite or secret government weapons required.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

You are truly a shameless liar. What i pointed out that you took out of context was from the FEMA report about the sulfidized beam, making it seem as if this phenomenon required temps of only 7-800 deg C to be explained. Do you really think everybody here is so stupid that they forgot how i illustrated your out-of-context quoting by posting the entire passage and showing what you left out? You think the readers here are like the ones at SLC?

“I would agree that Shermer is not an expert……. is quite good.”

He has written an article for Scientific American and keeps speaking out on it. His complete acceptance of the official story, in fact of versions of it which have been disavowed even by NIST, shows how much of a “skeptic” he is. He is guided far more by belief than by science.

“As far as “molten metal” you are doing just like the other cranks and ignoring other possible answers and instead relying on the supernatural. Go to the hardware store, buy some steel wool and a 9-volt battery. Touch them together. The steel wool will spark, melt, and burn. No volcanoes, thermite or secret government weapons required.”

This is your proof that fire can melt steel? You think the steel in steel wool is the same steel used for structural steel? This may go over with your ignorant readers at SLC, but i happen to have a degree in mechanical engineering, and i took courses in metallurgy. There are lots of different types of steel, different mixtures (carbon content is a big factor), depending upon the intended use. Steel wool is quite remote from structural steel. And it is also composed of very fine fibers, i.e. not in the form of thick beams. Thus, it has a large ratio of surface area per given unit of mass. Try doing this experiment with a thick structural steel beam. This comparison is strictly for glueheads. And besides, the evidence showed IRON spheres, iron doesn’t melt till some 2800 deg F. But now you have trapped yourself some more by suggesting “other possible answers.” So what are these answers? What can explain temps of 2800 deg F to 5100+ deg F? Show us how you can melt molybdenum or vaporize steel with this battery setup of yours.

James B says:

No, at SLC I would have more than 3 readers…

“Steel wool is quite remote from structural steel.”

But you are the only one insisting that any molten iron comes from structural steel. There are literally millions of sources of iron, including human blood. Once again, the fact that you can’t account for every phenomenon is a large chaotic situation does not give you the right to create your own fantasy to explain it.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

As if i was talking about numbers. Anyone who reads SLC and takes it seriously most likely failed 8th grade science.

The iron in human blood is not in the form which would ever show up as molten iron spheres. Your assertions are strictly science for glueheads and paint thinner sniffers. On second thought, maybe it’s not only your loyal readers who failed 8th grade science.

Regular building dust has only .04% iron content. The WTC dust contained 5.87% iron content, in the form of spheres, demonstrating that melting occurred during the event, per the lab which did the analysis (RJ Lee). And maybe human blood explains molten molybdenum and vaporized lead and steel as well, eh? And you compound your situation further by trying to attribute the evidence to chaos theory. You have just tightened the trap further. Now what, trapped rat?

Only three sources can account for temps hot enough to melt iron, vaporize lead, melt molybdenum and vaporize steel: volcanos, proximity to hot stars, and explosives and/or incendiary devices. Special tools could account for some molten iron, but not in the quantity detected in this instance, and cannot account for the other phenomena. The first two of the three are ruled out. This leaves the third. Maybe James B. will tell us that when someone’s head is observed blowing up into dust sized pieces an hour after being punched that this doesn’t necessarily mean he/she was shot in the head by something, that such a conclusion is unwarranted unless the weapon can be identified. Unless you can provide another explanation for such high temperatures, you have been caught in yet another lie.

And notice, everyone, how James B. didn’t even try to further contest the fact that he quoted out of context. His credibility has sunk below zero.

James B. says:

“Anyone who reads SLC and takes it seriously most likely failed 8th grade science. “

Possibly, we get a lot of comments from Truthers. We allow open comments. Skeptics are immediately banned from any Truther site. They don’t seem to be too big on this whole free spech/open dissent thing. ironic.

Wait a minute, I just showed you that a cigarette lighter can produce molten metal under the right condition, now you are saying this can only be caused by explosives and incendiaries. ADD much?

James B says:

Wait a minute, you have been saying for days that this molten metal can only produced by volcanoes, stars, incendiaries or explosives, now you are saying that they are present in ordinary building dust, albeit in smaller quantities. So which of those 4 elements are present in a normal office building?

Comparing normal building dust to one of the largest building disasters in the world is a rather bizarre comparison anyway. That is like going to an airplane crash and saying, “A normal landing does not have near this amount of ripped body parts and debris. What could account for that?”

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Sure you allow open comments, greeted with abuse and pushed out. SLC doesn’t even rise to the level of garbage.

“Wait a minute, I just showed……… ADD much?”

Typical of the personal insults you use at SLC. If anyone is showing attention deficit, it is you. The quote from me which you are responding to does not say “molten metal” in the abstract. It specifies four phenomena. Are you claiming that a cigarette lighter can melt structural steel, vaporize lead, melt molybdenum and vaporize steel? If so, you have reached amazing depths of ignorance. If not, you have just tried to lie your way out. Either way, you have tightened the trap further.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

“Wait a minute, you have been saying for days that this molten metal can only produced by volcanoes, stars, incendiaries or explosives, now you are saying that they are present in ordinary building dust, albeit in smaller quantities. So which of those 4 elements are present in a normal office building?”

Deliberate false attribution number three on your part. Iron *powder* is what’s present in regular building dust, not molten iron spheres, and certainly in much smaller proportions than what was observed. And vaporized lead, molten molybdenum and vaporized steel are not present in such dust, i never said anything of the sort. You are left with nothing but lies.

Another of your stupid comparisons, this one comes back to bite you. Ripped body parts and debris of course constitute evidence for a crash. A high proportion of molten iron spheres in dust likewise indicates that the iron melted during the event which created the dust, cannot be explained as something which was already present. This required a temperature of at least 2800 deg F. The other molten and vaporized metals required far higher temperatures. Keep squirming and squealing.

James B says:

LOL And you actually inspected all of that iron dust to make sure that none of them were in the shape of spheres? Or is your evidence based on the fact that you get to pick the synonym? I love Truther science. It is so… flexible.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

If someone were to read this, they would be justified in thinking that i’m paying you to post here and look stupid. You got it backwards, the iron particles were ALL in the shape of spheres, exactly what happens when iron melts and is flung about, due to surface tension. The wording “spheres” is per the professional laboratory RJ Lee and the USGS, which did the examining, not per some “truthers.” You got all your legs stuck in the trap, and now you’ve added your tail.

James B says:

I am talking about the “powder” which you claim to be perfectly natural, as opposed to the spheres which are created by supersekrit pentagon weapons. Go ahead and pay me, I could use the cash. I find you amusing, but I don’t have any delusions that this conversation will change the world. In another 10 years, you will be in the same place you are now, posting incoherent rants on the internet and accomplishing nothing.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Before anything else, let’s remind the audience that you quoted out of context, then asserted it didn’t matter anyway, then tried to make it look as if my charge pertained to a completely different passage you quoted. A lie compounded thrice. And you have falsely attributed stuff to me three times. You haven’t got a shred of credibility left.

[quote of previous post]

Such spheres are created by metal melting and then being flung in the air, which is what gives the molten metal bits a spherical shape, surface tension due to its moving in liquid form, just as with falling water drops. Melting metal in a furnace and the flinging the fluid would also create such spheres. Iron powder requires neither melting nor flinging in the air, you can get iron powder for instance by rubbing the metal with emery cloth. Melting by itself isn’t enough to create spheres, neither is flinging in the air, of course. I’m sorry i attributed to you 8th grade science knowledge, you obviously didn’t get that far.

And your last two sentences are nothing more than an attempt to extricate yourself from the trap. As i’ve said previously, you can leave any time, this being a virtual trap, not a real one. But any time you come back, the trap will be as tight as ever. And any time you come back and open your mouth, you in fact cause the trap to tighten by putting forth more lies and more garbage. The whole world will be able to come here and observe how one of the principals of Screw Loose Change is trapped like a rat, whether you leave now or keep coming back.

James B. says:

“Before anything else, let’s remind the audience “
Audience? Look at the line right above the posts:
“Tracked by 3 customers”
Delusions of grandeur, much?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

You tried this before, James, it drew a bunch of comments. Your lying and complete cluelessness are here on exhibit for the world to see, which people will, at the time of their own choosing.

[For many more refutations of James B from the Debunking the Debunkers blog click here.]

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services
Nov 282011
Editor’s Note:  U.S. military crackdown on the occupy movement sends a message to Cairo.  We should hear the message of Cairo’s citizens through their reaction to Egypt’s military crackdown.

CAIRO, Egypt — Once again, this country is in flames. The protests started on Friday when Egyptians from across the political spectrum rejected the Supreme Council of Armed Forces’ proposed supra-constitutional powers that would deny power from any future elected government. Now, the body count here is at least 31 with reports of more coming in every hour.

In the first half of the clip you can see the Egyptian government’s Central Security Force troops trying to clear protesters from Mohamed Mahmoud Street. This is three blocks east of Tahrir Square, where thousands of Egyptian protesters are sitting in. I shot it on Monday the 21st around 2 p.m.

About half way through the clip you can see several Egyptian protesters throwing Molotov cocktails and stones at the policemen. In the background you can hear the report of gas guns ( 37-mm grenade launchers) and 12-gauge shotguns. As the tear gas smoke thickens, protesters are forced to momentarily retreat down Falaki street.

Parliamentary elections are scheduled to begin Monday, Nov. 28. How many more gas grenades and Molotov cocktails will be launched before then is anyone’s guess.

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account

    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services