Link to animated video on this website - hosted on YouTube

9/11: Have we been bamboozled?

by Jim Fetzer

• Here are four stories that didn’t make the mainstream news. They range from some you will find easy to believe to some you’ll find incredible.

If you want to know more about the fabrication of 9/11 and you’re tired of the lies we’ve been told or want new independent information, you’ll want to attend The Vancouver Hearings, June 15-17 at the Denman Theatre, 1737 Comox Street in Vancouver.

Story 1: The “collapse” that wasn’t a collapse

collapsing towers

Videos show Flight 175 completely entering the South Tower before it explodes, when that should have happened on contact. Would you believe that Pilots for 9/11 Truth has studied air/ground communications and discovered that Flight 175 was in the air but over Pittsburgh at the time?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-AFTER-CRASH.html

Did you know the fires in the towers did not burn hot enough nor long enough to cause steel to weaken, much less melt? Have you noticed those buildings are blowing apart in every direction rather than falling to the ground – that they did not collapse?

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010 /02/new-911-photos-released.htm

Story 2: The first death of Saddam Hussein

How about the hanging of Saddam Hussein? You probably saw it on television. It was widely broadcast at the time. But Saddam Hussein, his two sons and about 60 members of his general staff were killed on April 7, 2003.saddam hussein

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/12/ed-schultz-and-the-mission-accomplished-fiasco/

Chris Wachter, a B-1 bomber pilot, took them out with 2 JDAM bombs at a restaurant on the outskirts of Baghdad. He was lionized when he returned to his base, put on CNN, awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, and honoured by The Rev. Robert Schiller at The Crystal Cathedral on May 25, 2003.

http://twilightpines.com/media/cwachter1.mpg

The following day, he was flown back to Langley, VA, home of the CIA, and told that, while they admired his flying skill, “officially,” Saddam had gotten away. Killing the leader of a foreign nation had been made illegal by executive orders from three presidents: Reagan, Carter and Ford. So they put one of his doubles in a spider hole, “found him” and then tried him and hung him on December 30, 2006. Almost no one noticed the difference.

Story 3: The second death of Osama bin Laden

Everyone knows that Barack Obama took out Osama bin Laden during that daring raid on his compound in Pakistan, right? There was a famous photograph of Obama, Biden and Hillary watching as it went down.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382859/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Photo-Obama-watching-Al-Qaeda-leader-die-live-TV.html

However, Leon Panetta, Director of the CIA, explained there had been no coverage for the first 20-25 minutes and these assaults only take five minutes or less. Osama bin Laden actually died of medical complications on December 15, 2001 and was buried in an unmarked grave.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth published editorial about it. David Ray Griffin wrote a book on it, Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive? Nicholas Kollerstrom wrote his article, “Osama bin Laden: 1957-2001.”

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/ 2011 /05/osama-bin-laden-1957-2001.html

Story 4: What didn’t happen at the Pentagon

The official account claims a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, but there’s no massive pile of debris, no wings, no tail, bodies, seats or luggage. Not even its massive engines were recovered from the building even though they are virtually indestructible – they weren’t there.real aeroplane superimposed over photo

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-didnt-happen-at-pentagon.html

The plane is supposed to have skimmed the ground at 500 mph and taken out a series of lampposts en route to its target. But “ground effect” makes that impossible and those lampposts would have ripped off the wing and exploded the jet fuel stored inside it.

It didn’t happen. And the only photo the Pentagon has provided shows a plane that is far too small to have been Flight 77.

Jim Fetzer is a former Marine Corps officer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and a journalist for Veterans Today. He has written dozens of articles on subjects like 9/11 and JFK.

 

55 comments

  1. Albury Smith /

    According to Fetzer, these fires weren't hot enough to weaken steel:
    http://www.debunking911.com/Fire.jpg
    and 56 minutes and 102 minutes aren't long enough for them to have burned. He then implies that steel melted to cause the WTC collapses, despite no claims of melting steel in any NIST or other government hypothesis.
    These are some of the reasons why no one with any sense believes anything he says.
     
     

    • What you say is correct…but incorrect. I haven't heard what he said but I believe the statement you attribute to him , was indeed said ny him..but misunderstood.   The jet fuel was Not hot enough to melt the steel and cause the collapse. BUT…the steel support pillars Were melted …in a cut through the pillers. Thermite…restricted, for military only …high temperature exposive / cutting torch.. was found in traces and the molten steel from the cut at the pillar base…were still liquid 2 weeks after the controlled explosions brought all 3 buildings down. 5 yrs research into this and I have seen all the details and the evidence. Inside Job??? UNDENIABLE..if you do any research on this…if you do…Welcome to the rabbit hole! How far will your belief / denial system, let you go?

      • Albury Smith /

        Gee, it must be really great stuff if it secretly collapses huge hi-rises and is then capable of producing sufficient heat to keep steel molten for weeks (actually, the fires burned ~100 days). Debris fires kept lead and aluminum molten in a few places for some of that time, but do you have any photos or accounts of partially melted columns? Any scientific measurements of debris temperatures hot enough to melt steel?
        Fetzer produced a straw man, and you're suggesting a phenomenon that's unknown to mankind, i.e. an explosive or incendiary that keeps burning for more than ~3 minutes. It came from a guy who also claimed that A HUNDRED TONS or more of conventional high explosives augmented the "nanothermite" he was "reminded of" by the presence of rust, aluminum, sulfur, silicon, etc. in some WTC dust samples. Fragmentation grenades contain ~1/2# of conventional high explosives. Ever heard one? Harrit apparently hasn't.

    • scaramouche /

      albury smith shill ( aka ass ) is an unqualified, anonymous troll, a demonstrable liar, who spends his life trolling any website that refers to 911 truth, posting his unsolicited absurd misinformation, disinformation and obfuscations on every page possible, tirelessly and repetitively.. all the while pretending to be some sort of final arbiter, on all things 911 who, while remaining anonymous, continually slanders qualified experts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fUT7XgLiTY

      the official version of events is nothing more than mere allegations. there has never been any credible evidence offered to support any of it. as a matter of fact, their own *evidence* actually proves 100% the official version of events can not be true, as a little investigation into the murray street engine shows… http://ckpi.typepad.com/christopher_king/2009/09/murray-street-engine.html

      It doesnt matter how or what was used to bring building 7 down, or if it took ten seconds or thirty. The fact that building 7 fell at freefall acceleration for ~2.5 seconds, as acknowledged begrudgingly by NIST, IS evidence that explosives were used as it is IMPOSSIBLE for all the structural support necessary for freefall acceleration to be achieved to be removed instantaneously and simultaneously without some form of controlled demolition. http://rememberbuilding7.org/

      as he well knows, and as he is unable to prove otherwise beyond any reasonable doubt, not just because he is an anonymous unqualified troll, but because the laws of physics applied just as much on 9-11 as they do today. any legitimate psychiatrist would therefore regard alburys position as insane. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/psychologists-mental-health-questioning-911-sane.html

      further evidence of his chutzpah can be witnessed via a simple internet search for “albury smith 9 11” – his pitiful efforts are quite amusing as he stuggles against an overwhelming growing majority of people who after looking into a few facts, find it not unreasonable for family members of the victims to be calling for a proper independent transparent unfettered investigation with subpoena power, as called for, by an overwhelming, continually growing, majority of the worlds population, a fact verifiable by past and recent polls. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/911-and-the-war-on-terror-polls-show-what-people-really-believe-10-years-later.html

      • Albury Smith /

        If WTC 7’s collapse time doesn’t matter, why does Box Boy keep bringing it up and lying about it?

    • Bruce Bethany /

      Are you the infamous troll paid by sinister forces to discredit 9/11
      investigative work?

  2. Thomas Hill Green /

    Two points in response to Albury Smith:
    First, several so-called experts from mainstream media sources did , in fact, make the assertion that the fires melted steel.
    http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html
    Secondly, the issue of whether steel melted is not settled by simply referring to the pronouncements of NIST or any other agency of Bush's administration.

    • Albury Smith /

      There are degrees of competence in the SE community, and the bottom line is that molten steel is not in any NIST collapse hypothesis, so positing it is a straw man. They have not ruled out the possibility that steel melted in the debris fires, and discussed that (unlikely) possibility in a 2006 FAQ.
       

  3. As usual, Albury has no idea what he is talking about.  NIST studied 236 samples of the steel and found that  233 had not been exposed to temperatues above 500*F and the other three not above 1200*F.  UL had certified the steel to 2,000*F for three or four hours without enduring any adverse effects.  The fire in the South Tower burned only about an hour and in the North about an hour and a half.  So the fires burned neither hot enough nor long enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt.  Albury cites unreliable sites with misleading information.  See "20 reasons the 'official account' of 9/11 is wrong" on the science of 9/11 and "Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of plots within plots" (with Preston James) on the politics, both Veterans Today. 

  4. Shallel /

    Albury, that is the weakest attemp at disinfo I''ve ever seen. Go study high school physics and come back and talk to us Scientists…

    • Albury Smith /

      Go talk to the NIST scientists and engineers, the ASCE, AIA, RIBA, ICC, etc.

  5. Brett /

    @Albury Smith – I have seen & heard a lot of Jim Fetzer over the years & from that I can say that I have never seen,heard or read Jim say or imply that steel melted to cause the WTC collapses. See story 1 above ….
    He certainly has some very compelling arguments to indicate that the official story is not what actually happened.
    Why try to "debunk" someone who is simply trying to get to the truth. His findings are far more plausable than the 911 report & NIST report which, to even the most basic examination, are lacking.
    Can I suggest that you examine the available evidence with an open mind as defending the "official" account is now akin to the 3 monkeys who see, hear & speak nothing.
    Honestly, there are that many holes in the official story that you could fly 4 planes through them … :)

  6.  
    Allbury, you are delusional. 
    "According to Fetzer, these fires weren't hot enough to weaken steel:
    and 56 minutes and 102 minutes aren't long enough for them to have burned. He then implies that steel melted to cause the WTC collapses, despite no claims of melting steel in any NIST or other government hypothesis". 
     
    Really, he said that? Albury, you don't even have 2nd grade reading skills.  Fetzer NEVER implied that steel melted to cause the collapses. He said :"Did you know the fires in the towers did not burn hot enough nor long enough to cause steel to weaken, much less melt? Can you decipher simple english? 
    Allbury, you are all but buried after being hoisted your own petard. No one will ever believe anything YOU say. By your own words, you have just proved how irrelevant you and the other 9/11 trolls have become. You guys are done. Finsihed. David Ray Griffith, Jin Fetzer and Richard Gage and 1700 other architects and engineers have totally exposed EVERY ASPECT of the official government consipracy (OCT). It is a gigantic myth that is not even worthy of a pulp fiction novel. 

    • Albury Smith /

      "Much less melt" clearly implies that the claim was made that it did to cause a WTC collapse. The melting of steel is not in any NIST or other government collapse hypothesis, so it's a very obvious straw man argument. He also claimed that the massive fires in the towers weren't hot enough to WEAKEN steel, so worry about your own reading skills. Your sanity's in question too if you believe him.

  7. Typo fix:
    Allbury, you are all but buried after being hoisted on your own petard. No one will ever believe anything YOU say. By your own words, you have just proved how irrelevant you and all the other 9/11 trolls have become. You guys are done. Finished.
    David Ray Griffin, Jin Fetzer, Richard Gage and 1700 other architects and engineers have totally exposed EVERY ASPECT of the official government consipracy (OCT) as a gigantic pack of lies that is not even worthy of a pulp fiction novel. 

  8. I will assure you Dr Fetzer understands more about 9/11 than most idiots at NIST or our so called government will
    ever admit to.  If you care to learn the most up to date information concerning how the towers were brought down
    or how video fakery was used,  either attend the Vancouver hearings June 15 or visit the website Dr Fetzer listed
    at  http://www.911vancouverhearings.com.   There is no doubt as to the use of directional mini or micro nukes, due to the discovery of many radionuclides in the dust samples and blood cancers and lymphomas in over a thousand first responders, cleanup workers, and nearby residents.  If you're serious about learning the truth,
     do your damn homework.  A good place to start is the 9/11 scholars forum,  or the Real Deal Podcast.

  9. Albury Smith /

    Be sure to post comments here that everyone likes, not facts and truth, or your posts will be hidden. Mine was, and the 6 who allegedly disliked it have not explained why.
    The fires in the WTC towers were massive, and burned for 56 and 102 minutes respectively before collapsing the buildings. The severe damage that they alone did to the extremely lightweight bar joists and columns is visible in numerous photos and videos, and is well documented in eyewitness accounts. If explosives caused the collapses, they must have been silent kind that didn't even disturb the smoke from the fires until the tops started falling. Only the 9/11 "truth movement" knows about them.

    • Office fires with or without jet fuel cannot burn hot enought to cause a steel framed building to collapse.
       
      There are video recordings in which explosions can be clearly heard before and during the demolitions of the towers and building 7.
       
      Asymetrical damage to a structure cannot cause symetrical failure.
       
      Try to learn a liitle about a subject before posting statements that reveal your ignorance of basic science.

    • As usual, Albury has no idea what he is talking about.  NIST studied 236 samples of the steel and found that  233 had not been exposed to temperatues above 500*F and the other three not above 1200*F.  UL had certified the steel to 2,000*F for three or four hours without enduring any adverse effects.  The fire in the South Tower burned only about an hour and in the North about an hour and a half.  So the fires burned neither hot enough nor long enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt.  Albury cites unreliable sites with misleading information.  See "20 reasons the 'official account' of 9/11 is wrong" on the science of 9/11 and "Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of plots within plots" (with Preston James) on the politics, both Veterans Today. 

    • Homura /

      Yeah, leave it to the "9/11 Truth" movement to get offended when someone disputes their pre-determined conclusions. God forbid that we should admit that the WTC was a center of currency trading that destroys third world economies and sucks them into the web of globalization, enriching traders in the US in the process, or that some people from another country might be motivated to target a place like that.
      Instead, let's delude ourselves with absolute nonsense about free fall speeds, how the fires weren't hot enough, and internal explosives.

      • Grow dope, plant an Albury /

        "Instead, let's delude ourselves with absolute nonsense about free fall speeds,"
         
        That pitiful statement in itself does more to discredit you than anything anyone else could add. Youve highlighted your incapacity to understand the fundamentals of primary physics. NISTs acknowledgement of freefall acceleration, in itself, is proof positive that 911 could not have happenned as we are being told. If that fact is beyond your comprehension, I suggest you stick to arguments pertaining to nothing beyond the scope of which soda is better, pepsi or coke, because until you successfully complete a course in Physics 101, this discussion is beyond you.

  10. Well I can't speak for the other five, but your theory of super hot jet-fuel fires melting the steel is nonsense.   Steel
    melts at about 2500 degrees Fahrenheit.  The boiling point of steel is around 5400 degrees Fahrenheit  Jet fuel (kerosene) would have burned off in the first few seconds.
    Jet fuel burns in open air at 500-600 degrees Fahrenheit.  When you realize a hollow aluminum plane can't fly into
    a steel and concrete building, you can see the whole plane/ jet-fuel story is a myth.  There were no planes flying into anything on 9/11. It looks like a mixture of thermite cutter charges, directional 4th generation mini or micro nukes, and probably conventional explosives  used on the towers and bldg 7.  From what I understand, the new nukes use deuterium and tritium and can be made directional.  I think the noise level
     from them is much lower.  I think there were larger nukes under the towers which vaporized  much of the steel and concrete into extemely fine dust, and left huge craters melted into the bedrock under the towers.  A few drops of jet fuel just can't vaporize steel and concrete.  The movie  "9/11 Eyewitness"  should be a good place
    to see the fireball at the base of the towers about a second before the tops started exploding upwards.  9/11 was a scripted, staged event meant to whip up public anger towards Muslims for the sake of Israel.

  11. Allbury,
    No evidence of expolsions? What planet are you on?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

    • Albury Smith /

      Which of those eyewitnesses said he heard demolition charges? When did they hear them? Here's the petition for Erik Lawyer's "firefighters" for 9/11 "truth":
      http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469
      How many signatories to it even CLAIM to be FDNY? They lost 343 of their colleagues, close friends, and relatives on 9/11, mostly in the tower collapses, so don't they care what killed them, or aren't they as astute as you are? The sounds of BLEVEs, backdrafts, flashovers, exploding transformers and tanks, debris falling >1000' through shafts, and fuel vapors exploding would all have carried a few blocks.

  12. Allbury.
     Dan Rather reported live on the WTC 7 explosion, which reminded him of controlled demolitions.
    Would you say that Dan was delusional?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL3kL0nXZvk

  13. Thomas Hill Green /

    Albury, I posted an explanation on June second, but they are still awaiting moderation….strangely, your comments from the third are already readily posted and available….
    Very bizarre.

    • Albury Smith /

      That's a new one. A web site that posts Fetzer's bunk and blocks twoofers instead of me? :-)

  14. Thomas Hill Green /

    The moderators here are clearly incompetent.Therefore, I won't waste any more time correcting Albury's tired, old, already refuted, "debunking" points….

  15. Albury, You have been doing your best to debunk the truth about 9/11.  Notice that the building is blowing apart in every direction, not collapsing as did WTC-7.  Compare "This is an orange" with "9/11: The Towers of Dust".  NIST studied 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F, which is the temperature of an ordinary office fire, and the other three not above 1,200*F.  Since UL had certified the steel used i the buildings to 2,000*F for three or four hours, these fires did not burn hot enough or long enough to weaken, much less melt, the steel.  But I know you are doing your best.  For those who want more on the science of 9/11, see "20 reasons the 'official account' of 9/11 is wrong".  And on the politics of 9/11, see "Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of plots within plots", with Preston James.  We have a lot on 9/11 and you deserve to know it, too.

    • Albury Smith /

      Who said that any steel melted to cause a WTC building collapse? According to NIST, what steel in the fire areas was only heated to 500F? No steel is certified to last 4 hours in 2000F temperatures, and office fires typically reach ~1100F in the upper air layers. Steel loses nearly 80% of its yield strength at that point, and it happens very quickly with light sections like the tower joists and 1/4"-walled perimeter columns.
      It's especially stupid to argue the NIST report on the towers, since the collapse hypothesis is largely in plain sight, and was captured on video and in photos, as well as being reported by eyewitnesses. Explosives, even your imaginary fireproof ones, don't cause columns to bow inward slowly for a half hour or more, and would easily have been seen in the smoke patterns, which weren't disturbed until the columns buckled and the tops began falling. If they'd severed any steel at all, Steven Jones wouldn't have needed to use photos of torch-cut columns as "evidence."
      Leave the structural engineering to people who understand it, or at least be honest about their findings.

    • Albury Smith /

      You may want to consider peeling off a few of those extra layers of tin foil, Jim, instead of your imaginary 9/11 onion. The C/D "theory" for the towers is especially absurd, since most of the NIST collapse hypothesis for them is in PLAIN SIGHT, and was reported by eyewitnesses well before the collapses occurred:
      https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande
      Any video of either of them clearly shows that not even the smoke was disturbed until after the tops started falling, and global collapse was inevitable at that point. If that's problematic for you, take it up with Leslie Robertson, the SE of record for both WTC towers. His comments are in this video:
      http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition
      as are more of them from Gene Corley, Irwin Cantor (WTC 7 SE of record), and Matthys Levy. Stick to teaching philosophy and leave the forensic engineering to qualified people.

  16. rogermorris /

    Speaking of things especially stupid, The explosive destruction of WTC complex being called 'collapse' is the definition of it. Also an example of the sophist [perception management] at work.
    What took place before our eyes was not the creatioNIST hypothesis, but an exploding series of buildings. The especially stupid among us are determined to pretend Pinocchio Sunder and the magicbolt 'new phenomenon' present anything other than basic scientific fraud backed by the 'crippled epistemology' of the conspiracy denialist. 
    NIST modelling couldn't and didn't produce the OBSERVABLE building behaviour at all no matter what albright smith sais, and had to DISCONNECT the floors before applying the imaginary 'pull-in' force IN THE MODEL. Thats not science albright. NCSTAR state clearly "locations and magnitudes of pull-in forces were not accurately simulated" and "pull-in 'forces were applied in some locations where the full floor analysis did not predict the development of such behaviour". No physical tests support the hypothesis, exaggerated temperatures and double times still didn't produce the OBSERVABLE. Even FEMA called NIST hypothesis 'low probability of occurring'.
    Its the same with WTC7. The cartooNISTs animate an entirely other building and pretend its building 7. The actual OBSERVABLE behaviour, that of 'in the manner of controlled demolition' and the 2.25 second FREE FALL phase [NO RESISTANCE] cannot exist in building science UNLESS by explosive means. "Fire Induced Sequential Building Collapse due to Normal Office Furnishings Fires" is a creatioNIST agnotology. NIST INVENTED their hypothesis WITHOUT regard forensic and eyewitness EVIDENCE of explosive events. It is a theory NOT backed by observable building behaviour AT ALL. Just try to answer the FREE FALL phase of WTC7 Albury ! Where did those 81 vertical columns over that 8 storied lower segment ALL dissappear to AT THE SAME MOMENT to create the OBSERVABLE building behaviour. And WHY did creatioNIST modellers turn the HEAT OFF the CONCRETE floor slabs to create the 'heat differentials' to create the critical shear-stud breaks in the MODEL? WHY is that DATA 'states secret privilage'?
     

    • Albury Smith /

      How does attacking the NIST findings provide evidence of explosives, Roger?

    • Albury Smith /

      Aside from Box Boy's "800 engineers," Roger, do you know of any others who'd need to see someone else's complete input and results files before even STARTING their own ANSYS and LS-DYNA modeling? NCSTAR 1A was released in 2008!

      • Grow dope, plant an Albury /

        NISTs own acknowledgement of freefall acceleration for a period of ~2.5 seconds is evidence enough that their modelling cannot be an accurate description of real world events.
        They, and you it seems, are unable to explain how freefall is possible withouth the use of explosives. In order for freefall acceleration to be acheived, mass must be falling through nothing but air, even a stack of cards would offer some resistance.
        In order for this to occur, the steel framed supports, across the entire building, for several floors, must have been removed instantaneously and simultaneously. Isolated fires alone, as NIST contend, can not do this. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. The ONLY way this is possible is through some form of controlled explosives, as you have been shown repeatedly over the years.
        Keep banging away on your drum, but make all the noise you want, truth fears not noise, not investigation, nor agents for israel.
        You have been comprehensively schooled, and all your efforts have accomplished is to turn you into an internet joke.
        http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/04/do-we-need-another-911-conspiracy-theory/

        • Albury Smith /

          Urge Box Boy and his "800 engineers" to demonstrate how to cut steel columns with explosives. The 24 core columns in WTC 7 were W14 X 730s:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY
           
           
           

          • Just how many times do you need it explained to you?
            http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/04/do-we-need-another-911-conspiracy-theory/
             

            Albury Smith
            June 14, 2012 at 12:52 pm

            Really? Are there patented applications that don’t require access to the bare steel, fastening bulky contraptions to columns, and don’t leave a hideous mess on the cut ends? What patented application gives any incendiary the split-second timing needed for building demolitions, and what real C/Ds have used them? Good luck finding one that burns for months too, since the ones on this planet all go out in a minute or 2. Jones, Harrit, et al. are nutty as squirrel poop, but I know that you’re not their representative.

            Jeremy R. Hammond
            June 14, 2012 at 1:00 pm

            Yes.

            “This thermite-based method will allow operators to penetrate a material in timeframes similar to explosive shape charges without the safety concerns and security risks associated with explosives. In addition, the sustained duration of a thermite jet will more effectively handle discontinuities and interfaces that normally disrupt and dissipate explosively driven shape charge jets. When a linear shaped charge is used for cutting steel on a steel bridge demolition project, a large degree of preparation work must be undertaken to ensure a successful cut or penetration. A “preconditioning” process involves removing overlapping plates and areas of reinforcement with a conventional cutting torch. This process is time consuming, expensive, and dangerous. Conversely, the sustained jet of a thermite charge offers improved performance over multi-plate materials with limited or substantially no preconditioning…. While the projected thermite charge particle stream is a slower reaction than that of an explosively driven jet, it is very fast from the perspective of the operator. The anticipated timing for material penetration is typically on the order of hundreds of milliseconds.”
            – Richard W. Givens et al, “Thermite Charge,” U.S. Patent No. 7,555,986, July 7, 2009, http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7555986.html

             

  17. Albury Smith /

    Please urge Box Boy and his "800 engineers" to demonstrate how to cut steel columns with explosives. The 24 core columns in WTC 7 were W14 X 730s:
    youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY

    • Scorpio /

      You had that question answered two days before you asked it dumdum, why waste peoples time if youre not going to pay attention?.
      http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/04/do-we-need-another-911-conspiracy-theory/
      "

      Jeremy R. Hammond
      June 14, 2012 at 1:00 pm

      Yes.

      “This thermite-based method will allow operators to penetrate a material in timeframes similar to explosive shape charges without the safety concerns and security risks associated with explosives. In addition, the sustained duration of a thermite jet will more effectively handle discontinuities and interfaces that normally disrupt and dissipate explosively driven shape charge jets. When a linear shaped charge is used for cutting steel on a steel bridge demolition project, a large degree of preparation work must be undertaken to ensure a successful cut or penetration. A “preconditioning” process involves removing overlapping plates and areas of reinforcement with a conventional cutting torch. This process is time consuming, expensive, and dangerous. Conversely, the sustained jet of a thermite charge offers improved performance over multi-plate materials with limited or substantially no preconditioning…. While the projected thermite charge particle stream is a slower reaction than that of an explosively driven jet, it is very fast from the perspective of the operator. The anticipated timing for material penetration is typically on the order of hundreds of milliseconds.”
      – Richard W. Givens et al, “Thermite Charge,” U.S. Patent No. 7,555,986, July 7, 2009, http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7555986.html"

       

  18. rogermorris /

    There is nothing SECRET about the demolitions of WTC Smith. We all SAW them. We all WATCHED and HEARD them. It was on TV remember? The buildings OBSERVABLY exploded/imploded in classic and not so classic explosive/incendiary controlled demolitions. EJECTING in great arcs thousands of ton of steel hundreds of feet in perfect symmetry, sending heated pyroclastic pulverized concrete DUST storms thru Manhattan.
    Barry JENNINGS eye witnessed HUGE internal explosions trapping him and Hess in the WTC7. Nothing to do with airstrike. Willie Rodriguez and others TESTIFIED huge explosive events in subbasement levels BEFORE flight 11 hit tower one. PLENTY of audio evidence of explosives albright, established and waiting the bench of JUSTICE to be tested. Unignited thermitic material in the DUST. 6% of which was iron-rich microsphere – evidence of violent ejection and MOLTEN STEEL, later seen’running down the channel rails ‘like we was in a foundry’ in the PILE. Temperatures recorded enough to Vaporize and EVAPORATE STEEL… the 6.5+ second (2.25second AT FREE FALL)’in the manner of controlled demolition’ destruction of building 7, an 81 vertically columned 47 storied steel framed high-rise that had witnesses to a count-down before the odious owner ordered the ‘PULL’. You know all this albright. We have been through it a hundred times.

    No. The ‘secret’ is in how it got SOLD as anything ELSE. The pornography of this ‘secret’ is how Pinocchio Sunder and GROSS got away with parading that holographic agnotology infront of the worlds engineering and architectural PRESS without being skinned alive as LIAR.,the states secrets protected computer construct presenting rich testament to intellectual dishonesty rarely seen before his ‘new phenomenon:Thermal Expansion:Sequential Building collapse due to Normal Office Furnishings Fires” got its white house STAMP.
    The dirty little secret is how those presenting ‘free-press’ cred. managed to avoid completely ever mentioning ‘explosives ‘again, unless to denigrate the questioner; while sleeping in FOXHOLES, but never toward the hundreds of anomalies falling over themselves to be properly investigated.
    The ‘secret’ is in the systemic ‘crippled epistemology’ of a society of LIARS and war criminals pretending every single moment of their miserable lives in order to FUNCTION, upright, albright, determined to wreck havoc among the peoples of the world whatever way possible.
    But all dressed very SMART in those uniforms.
    All in the ‘best possible taste’. God on their side.
    Thats the secret albury Smith., YOU are the secret.

    • Albury Smith /

      If they weren’t secret, Roger, why do we need a 9/11 “truth movement” to keep telling us about them? “HUGE internal explosions” in real C/Ds are heard for miles, don’t blow up stairways, leave cut columns throughout the debris pile, and don’t take 7 hours or more to work.

      Your fumbling and pathetic NIST-bashing rants don’t provide a shred of evidence for explosives, and your “researchers” can’t even model without looking at someone else’s complete input and results files first. If Box Boy’s “800 engineers” actually had to show us how they’d cut 81 of these multiple times with explosives or anything else in a fraction of a second:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY

      it would be the last we heard about secret demolitions in NYC. Explosives and incendiaries that keep steel molten for months are a figment of your imagination, as is divining collapse causes by timing them.

      Leave the forensic structural engineering to people qualified to do it.

  19. I wasn’t bamboozled. I knew 9/11 was a false flag operation when it happened.

    Although almost 11 years have passed, 9/11 Truth is still the most effective road to peace.

  20. rogermorris /

    You are a comic albright. not a very good one. If commerceDept.NIST had actually investigated the 911 atrocity with integrity and truthfully reported what they found, there would be no need for a ‘truth movement’ because NIST would have DEALT with the forensic and eyewitness evidence OF demolition FOUND, and the courts of LAW would have been cross-examining Lucky Larry’s dermatology appointment that day.

    what else would serious qualified expert engineers and architects do BUT peer review the model? the”literature’ and bent data as presented by NISTs Pinocchio Sunder. It is BY that process the agnotology, the corruption and flaws have been and are being identified.

    • Albury Smith /

      Box boy doesn’t have any “serious qualified expert engineers,” Roger, and architects usually aren’t legitimate peers of structural engineers, especially those with the resumes of the NIST WTC investigators. Serious qualified expert engineers with a competing hypothesis would provide evidence for it instead of making fumbling assaults on another investigation, and they certainly wouldn’t need to see someone else’s complete input and results files before even STARTING to model an area of building framing on their own.

      If they’re really stupid enough to believe that they’d find evidence of explosives by discovering something wrong with the NIST conclusions, why don’t they just generate their own models and compare the findings? NIST spoon fed them the data in NCSTAR 1A and 1-9, and the ANSYS and LS-DYNA programs are readily available, even to “serious qualified expert engineers” who apparently never saw programs like that before. Since Box Boy claims he has 800 of these alleged engineers, what, aside from the fact that they’re total frauds, is stopping them from doing a very typical and basic engineering task that competent SEs do routinely?

  21. rogermorris /

    FREE FALL was identified by an Independent Physics teacher exposing NISTs avoidance of its FACT. He produced the evidence. That is not a ‘fumbling assault’. It is the absolute exposure of DECEITful practice at the HIGHEST end of government cover-up. Sunder KNEW there had been free fall: why did his report skirt the issue? A MAJOR ‘new phenomenon’ – TOTAL building destruction including pulverization of ALL concrete, melting and vaporization of high grade builders steel ALL due to ‘normal office furnishings fires’?!¡ AT Free fall? . 47 stories! 81 vertical columns straight down in 6.5 seconds +, due to ONE fire [out at the time] on ONE floor around ONE Girder/seat ….??
    why would an HONEST building assessment report NOT address FREE FALL as immediate matter of extreme Urgency?

    Your argument, the professional aspects of presenting hypothesis in face of forensics indicating opposite; where data skewed to produce intended result, by a conflicted government, where central algorithm or architecture or paradigms are locked away behind states secrets privilege – doesn’t back your ‘competent”qualified SE’ line atall. Someone somewhere corrupted the data. For a PURPOSE. Then presented it. That is CONSPIRACY. They HAD to, to enable the ‘sequential’ hypothesis a working chance. Otherwise the model wasn’t going to achieve the object of the exercise : ‘sequential collapse’.within observable times. FREE FALL is by OBSERVATION in this case INSTANTANEOUS, automatically indicating EXPLOSIVE demolition. NOTHING sequential about it, except the firing order, so data had to be created/invented, times and temperatures stretched etc as reported by Kevin Ryan. Data not factoring ‘thermal conductivity’ in a ‘thermal expansion’ model.what? Data not adding plates holding crucial Girder to crucial column. Data not recognizing fire OUT at critical heat compromised time/location. Data ‘turning the heat off the concrete’ in the model to get differentials to snap the shear-stud in the cartoon, to initiate the critical moment. NCSTAR1-9:352. Unheard of before 911. Data Factoring axial expansion on ‘unrestrained’ beams, and then before SAG.? EVEN so, cartooNISTs couldn’t get ‘collapse’ to look anything like REALITY. Resume? : Observed fire activity NOT a model input therefore we should not expect perfect correspondence between PREDICTED high temp. and OBSERVED fire activity. 378. So they got THAT right! .
    NIST hypothesis is a flawed THEORY. Pinocchio Sunder punished credulity by PUSHING IT AS FACT. The data wasn’t ‘spoon-fed’ us albright. It was ‘waterboarded’ down our fkng throats, our arms tied by the impossibility of degeneracy so large, corruption so fierce, investigative Judiciary so compliant , it drowned us.

    • Albury Smith /

      Dropping empty cardboard boxes on each other and lying about collapse times isn’t research, it’s lunacy. If you’re going to pretend to be an SE, please submit your ANSYS and LS-DYNA models for peer review. You’ll find more than sufficient input data in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, and the other NIST releases.
      Thanks in advance.

    • fandango /

      the unqualified albright – who it appears has now fallen off the face of the earth.. is out there – somewhere… screaming incoherently…

      “it’s paint i tell you! listen to me!!!! dont believe them they dont know anything…. ITS PAAAAAIIINNNTTT!!”

      goodbye allblurry.. you clown.. its been fun.

    • Albury Smith /

      How does finding sulfur, aluminum, rust, and silicon in some WTC dust samples, and claiming that it “reminds” you of something for which you provide no exemplars constitute evidence of it, Roger?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Conscious World Con-W.com » Blog Archive » 9/11: Have We Been Bamboozled? - [...] NOTE: This article first appeared in COMMON GROUND (June 2012). [...]
  2. “Innocence of Muslims”, the GOP and World War III by Jim Fetzer, September 18, 2012 (VIDEO) | 2012: What's the 'real' truth? - [...] killing of Osama bin Laden or concealing the first death of Saddam Hussein, which I summarized in “9/11: Have we …
  3. ‘Innocence Of Muslims’, The GOP And World War III (Veterans Today) - [...] killing of Osama bin Laden or concealing the first death of Saddam Hussein, which I summarized in “9/11: Have …
  4. “Innocence of Muslims”, the GOP and World War III « Middle East atemporal - [...] killing of Osama bin Laden or concealing the first death of Saddam Hussein, which I summarized in “9/11: Have we …
  5. “Innocence of Muslims”, the GOP and World War III | nsnbc - [...] killing of Osama bin Laden or concealing the first death of Saddam Hussein, which I summarized in “9/11: Have …
  6. “Innocence of Muslims”, the GOP and World War III | benlagle - [...] killing of Osama bin Laden or concealing the first death of Saddam Hussein, which I summarized in “9/11: Have …
  7. Bibi Cries, Obama Lies: What else is new? « Middle East atemporal - [...] making have been proven false and widely publish in venues such as Veterans Today and elsewhere in the world.  The evidence that …
  8. 9/11: Have we been bamboozled? | nsnbc - [...] NOTE: This article first appeared in COMMON GROUND (June 2012). [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*