Deseret News | Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say

Reader comments
Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say

280 comments | Read story

Greg | 8:19 a.m. April 10, 2009

There are 2 choices:
1. The twin towers , and especially Building seven that wasn't hit and had only small fires, all collapsed because they were the most poorly constructed buildings in the world.
or
2. The buildings were demolished in a controlled demolition.
I have never read any suport for choice one, or any investigation into poor construction. Therefore.....

Shorebreak | 8:54 a.m. April 10, 2009

I'd like to thank the editorial staff of Deseret News for demonstrating the journalistic integrity required to publish this story in an unbiased manner. Excellent work. At a time when many readers are seeking news and information from alternative sources, you have demonstrated that real and honest reporting can still be found in some traditional media. Please continue the excellent work.

billy bob | 8:55 a.m. April 10, 2009

i recently learned that there was a large explosion in the fields creating a crater just as the 4th plane hit the ground!...wow being a nut job conspirator is so much fun!!!

Comments continue below

Utah is so blind | 9:36 a.m. April 10, 2009

"conspiracy theory"...when are going to learn that sometimes the people in charge of this country makes mistakes??? WTC "Failure" was one of them.
Do you think that 3 airplanes can crash in the most important city in the world like nothing???!!! WOW that was a good movie!!! with all respect to those families.
But we need to see the real facts, this is about a new discovery to help us to know what really happened that day. Dont blame the muslims for everything, it is so obvious that they were help from inside, their job was so easy!!! War was the aswer....wrong answer!!!! good for business, but bad for us!!!

They just put the flag in our faces to keep us quiet and hate others for our faults!!!

Two Explanations? | 10:01 a.m. April 10, 2009

Greg,

Your logic is about as solid as is the Professor's logic!

LOL!

What a joke!

2 choices, eh? 1. the most poorly constructed buildings in the world, or 2. The buildings were demolished in a controlled demolition.

The buildings couldn't possibly have fallen because TWO HUGE PASSENGER JETS, FILLED WITH JET FUEL, SLAMMED INTO THEM!?

LOL!

You people are just amazing! I hope you all realize how much of a laughins stock you are making yourselves, and BYU, and the LDS Church!

ng | 10:09 a.m. April 10, 2009

good to see that evidence is still coming out and being talked about

BenF | 11:18 a.m. April 10, 2009

Actually the twin towers were, at the time, the most heavily redundant steel core structures in history, unless, of course, the architects who designed them and the builders who built them were lying and that construction pictures of the steel box column cores are photoshopped lies.

It doesn't make sense that the concrete decking of every floor, all laced with thousands of miles of rebar would all pulverize, rebar and all, and turn to spewing aerosolized dust all at near free fall speed. It splashed down through the greatest resistance, pulverizing everything without really slowing down. Use your head. Kinetic energy, energy in motion, means that in a gravitational collapse the maximum amount of energy you could possibly release at once would result in free fall speed. If the under infrastructure is taken out ahead of whatever is falling that release of that much kinetic energy is doable, as in a controlled demolition. We are supposed to believe none of these structures, which got stronger, wider, and more redundant the further down they got, all pulverized due to gravity collapse without slowing down, sloughing off of the greatest area of resistance all while doing massive pulverization work.

Gretavo | 11:42 a.m. April 10, 2009

Rusty Shackleford: "the simplest answer is usually the correct one."

Tanabear: "The explanation that can best account for the available evidence is normally the correct one."

You're absolutely right, T, but then again, which explanation sounds more simple?

1) On the same day as a military exercise simulating hijackings, a group of 19 Islamic terrorists who hate us because we are free successfully passed through airport security with most of them never appearing on surveillance video or the flight manifests and successfully hijacked 4 commercial airliners using boxcutters after which they, with no real life jumbo jet piloting experience to speak of, successfully flew the planes into three of their four targets, completely destroying *three* huge skyscrapers with *two* of them and making all 4 of the 6 ton steel and titanium engines on the other ones disappear entirely while causing oddly little damage on impact.

OR

2) the government and corporate media are covering up what really happened that day.

hmmmmmm... seems to me that anyone claiming to accept #1 is either suffering from some kind of cognitive issues OR is not being honest about what they truly think, maybe because they don't like arabs or muslims.

USA...USA...USA | 12:15 p.m. April 10, 2009

You twoofers don't get it do you?

There are only two real choices to consider for why the towers fell.

1)Al Qaeda has waged jihad against the laws of physics.

2)Al Qaeda got in there undetected and planted their nano engineered super thermite.

If 1) than Al Qaeda added mass/energy to only the top 15-30 floors above the impact zones to crush the towers below overcoming their resistance.

If 2) Al Qaeda got in there perhaps the same way they
escaped from the U.S. maximum security Bagram Air Force Base in Afganistan,or the prison in Yemen,or Tora Bora,or their airlift to Pakistan.Or the magical way Osama keeps slipping away yet still releases his videos in that magical tribal area that can never be penetrated.Hell,they out smarted NORAD for almost 2 hours on 9/11!

You twoofers just hate freedom.Gotta go now! I thought I heard a terrist under my bed!
Quick,burn the Constitution!

CODE ORANGE- CODE ORANGE

student of Prof. Jones | 2:49 p.m. April 10, 2009

I took a beginning physics course from Dr. Jones and I think he was a great professor. He was passionate and entertaining and was a very good scientist. I read much of his findings and I don't see anything wrong in further studying the evidence.

I think he might have jumped to some conclusions in blaming the government for the conspiracy, however. The terrorists themselves could have planted some bombs, its not like they haven't done that before. There could also likely be a much simpler reason for all the evidence that makes sense, one that does not include any kind conspiracy. Once again, there is nothing bad about looking into it.

As a BYU grad in computer engineering, I think my education at BYU was very valuable and as far from indoctrination as you can get. People who have never taken a class there should not comment on this.

betty | 2:59 p.m. April 10, 2009

Never mind conspiracy theories. Just answer the questions! Why don't they answer the questions? Not only do they not answer, they don't even let us ask. They ridicule us for asking. They shame us for wondering. Respected scientists get fired for doing what they're trained to do -- ask questions and form hypotheses. If they've nothing to hide, why do they suppress the unexplained questions and leave us wondering?

Tony | 3:11 p.m. April 10, 2009

I believed it was a conspiracy waged by fringe elements of rogue agencies since the day it happened. Hell, we already had Waco and OKC, so why not? NOBODY deceives like Mossad, CIA, and MI5/MI6. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

History bears out that 911 is well within the limits of the US's immorality.

No one has mentioned NORAD. Payne Stewart's little Cessna is flying next to one of those fighter jets, but we have FOUR commercial airliners and NOT ONE fighter was able to intercept it? Dang, bin Laden and crew must have some powerful laptops and the best decryption algorithms known to earth.

The cognitive dissonance is deafening. An inside job is beneath our government's morality? Really? Or, it is too great a conspiracy? Really? The most far-fetched conspiracy is the mainstream one.

One other thing. If our government was so ethical and non-complicit, it would do every thing in its power to find the truth. It has done the exact opposite.

Doesn't that tell you something? Why cover up?

Man...WAKE UP!!!

NB | 3:13 p.m. April 10, 2009

Every person is entitled to his/her own opinion! From day 1, I never believed that it was "terrorists" who flew a plane into the WTC. I believe it was a concerted & diabolical scheme hatched by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, & other sinister gangmembers to justify invasion into Iraq. Blood for oil!! I have considered past history--the American invasions into sovereign nations for a select few Americans' own ends--& I understand the present & will almost predict the future.

Bad Experiment | 3:30 p.m. April 10, 2009

After reading the article I wonder if the experiment should even be published. How can they be sure that the dust they were sampeling was from the World Trade Center? I would feel better if it was dust that a team of scientists collected shortly after 9/11 rather than taking the word of some ordinary New Yorkers who "brought" them samples.

Gretavo | 3:38 p.m. April 10, 2009

Student, I appreciate your informed opinion on Prof Jones' competence as a professor of physics. I think you are wrong, however, in assuming he has jumped to the facile conclusion that our government perpetrated the attacks themselves. Prof Jones has not to my knowledge made such allegations. Nor should we assume that explosives must have been placed by middle eastern terrorists. The truth cannot be known without a genuine impartial investigation which clearly has not yet been conducted. It should trouble any person of conscience that wars that have claimed thousands of innocent lives have nevertheless been waged with 9/11 as the primary justification. I believe Prof Jones and Prof David Griffin are such people-we would all do well to emulate their uncommon courage.

Anonymous | 3:39 p.m. April 10, 2009

"NB | 3:13 p.m. April 10, 2009
Every person is entitled to his/her own opinion! From day 1, I never believed that it was "terrorists" who flew a plane into the WTC. I believe it was a concerted & diabolical scheme hatched by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, & other sinister gangmembers to justify invasion into Iraq. Blood for oil!! I have considered past history--the American invasions into sovereign nations for a select few Americans' own ends--& I understand the present & will almost predict the future."

NB, you're a blind fool, and that is putting it gently.

Not so fast, Rick! | 3:57 p.m. April 10, 2009

"Rick | 8:48 a.m. April 7, 2009 - Thanks for the reporting. I am a veteran USAF Boeing mechanic and 25+ year Boeing Engineer in Seattle. We've known all along that airplanes alone could not do all this......."

Good grief!, and you being a guy who works on planes makes you an expert in structural engineering, and specifically, the structural engineering of skyscrapers, how??????

That's like me saying that I know everything about dancing because I build the shoes the dancer wears.

Or like saying I know everything about racing cars because I build the steering wheel the driver holds.

Do fly the planes you supposedly work on? Did you design the World Trade Center towers? Did you calculate the total energy the planes would have had when they slammed into the buildings? What are the critical structural breaking point numbers for the World Trade Center towers?

Care to share those calculations with us idiotic people who believe our Gov't, that though flawed, did not secretly plan this murderous scheme?

Misplaced Qualifications | 4:03 p.m. April 10, 2009

"Ralph Hughes | 8:56 a.m. April 7, 2009
There is much more evidence than just what Professor Jones presents that 911 was a false flag operation, as I believed it was from Day One. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it the planes alone did not bring the buildings down. A career as an engineer with jet engines was enough for me."

Ralph, you and Rick need to hang out together so we can minimize the damage you two would cause.

Again, being a jet engine mechanic in now way qualifies you to make judgements on the effectiveness, or lack thereof, on a several hundred thousand pound airliner smacking into a skyscraper.

None.

Zero.

Zip.

Nada.

Now, if I wanted to ask questions specific to jet engines, like how long would the engine(s) run after slamming into the building....1 second, 3 seconds, etc....I'll call you. But to make an overarching statement that the Gov't pulled this off because, hey, you're a jet engine mechanic, is ludicrous.

Wow | 4:28 p.m. April 10, 2009

Hey, "Not so fast, Rick!"...ACTIVE THERMITIC MATERIAL has been discovered in the 911-WTC debris.

What part of ACTIVE THERMITIC MATERIAL are you trying to avoid?

This is not about claiming anyone knows everything about structural mechanics. This is about ACTIVE THERMITIC MATERIAL in the debris.

Shall I say it again?

READ THE PAPER!!!

Mooser | 4:29 p.m. April 10, 2009

If my memory serves, the towers did NOT crumble or implode immediately on being hit by the planes. Wasn't there a long delay, on the order of an hour?
Any kinetic energy from the impact was long since dissipated, the buildings didn't even shudder. Most of the fuel was dissipated in the initial fireball (about 70%, as I remember). And then about an hour later, the building decides to fall down in a way only a demolition charges have ever accounted for.
Strange.

But please, go ahead and check. The planes hit, there was a long delay, and then the buildings fell.

Mooser | 4:36 p.m. April 10, 2009

Okay, let's get two questions separated. First, is the question of whether there were additional explosives in the towers to make them fall down. Second, is who put them there.
I'm convinced there were explosives used. As to who put them there? Well, that's another question. Might have been Al Qaeda, for all I know.

Thinking that there were additional explosives in the towers does NOT mean you believe that the US Government put them there. As I remember, Silverstein had an extra-national (Non-American) crew of laborers in the building while it was closed to work on the "communication system or something.

Again, thinking there were explosives does not mean you are convinced that Bush or Cheney, or anybody else American put them there. And science can answer the first question, the second may require human confession.

Mooser | 4:44 p.m. April 10, 2009

"Did you calculate the total energy the planes would have had when they slammed into the buildings?"

Much, much less than that exerted by a high wind during the storms in NY as a matter of fact.
And forget about the fuel, already. 70% of that was gone in the fireball.

Compared to that building, those planes were balsa wood. Solidest thing in 'em was the main shagt in the engines, and pieces of the landing gear. The buildings didn't even shudder.

Wow | 5:00 p.m. April 10, 2009

While I am not ready to state, "Bush did it." I am ready--and have been so for years now--to state that Cheney, George W. Bush, Zelikow, and various others among and connected to the Neocons, are highly suspect.

If you've read the 90-or-so-page paper, "Rebuilding America's Defenses for the 21st Century," you can find among the signatories some likely candidates for persons who may have played a role in or who had some kind of knowledge about 911.

I believe in fair trials, and emphatically oppose "lynchings." But if you study 911 in detail and its history, and the philosophy of the Neocons, they do indeed seem dangerously suspicious.

Chris | 5:16 p.m. April 10, 2009

Not only that Mooser, but the tower which was hit first fell last. And yes, "the government" didnt do 9/11, a handful of traitors in the gov and likely some Israelis "did" 9/11. The muslims were only patsies, its as simple as that. Again I urge all to Google these-"Dov Zakheim,9/11", Dominic Suter,Urban MOving Systems,9/11" and "Dick Cheney,wargames,9/11.".

Chris | 5:31 p.m. April 10, 2009

Lets connect some dots. The Anthrax attacks-said anthrax came from Ft. Detrick US military base and the main suspect is NOT Bruce Ivins but IS a man named Philip Zack(also spelled Zach in some cases for some strange reason). Do yourself a favor and google his name and the phrase-"anthrax attacks". The same element that pulled off the 9/11 attacks likely also pulled off the anthrax attacks and in neither case is it the mythical "al qaeda". By the way, wheres Osama? Exactly.

Rick: Thanks Mooser | 5:37 p.m. April 10, 2009

Thanks, that was indeed what I implied by saying the planes did not bring down the building by themselves.

The impact, and all the kenetic energy was gone in those first few seconds. The buildings stood. So, it wasn't the impact from the planes.

Kerosene [Jet A] burns at the lowest temperatures of fossil fuels - 549.5 F the same temperature as you might broil a chicken in an oven at home -- hardle enough to make steel glow red, let alone melt.

And to "Not so fast, Rick! | 3:57 p.m." Being a Boeing Engineer does let me advise in the matter. I've done so to both the FAA and the NTSB many times over the years. Not just for opinions and comment sections on a newspaper web-site.

BTW, Cutting torches used to cut and melt steel are well over 6,000 F, but I'm sure you already knew that too.

Wow | 6:18 p.m. April 10, 2009

Deniers: I invite you to google:

Patriots Question 911

You also might try AE911truth, but the first site provides a better starting place.

Hightower | 6:59 p.m. April 10, 2009

I watched as the towers collapsed and my thought was, THEN AS I WATCHED, this is a controlled demolition, from demolitions I had seen in real life. I did not need a scientist or other experts to tell me what I saw on the TV that day. I continue to pray that the perpetrators, whoever they may be, are brought to justice so that the world may be freed from the contamination and fallout.

Wars are being fought, countless people have lost their lives, had their lives damaged and destroyed, countries have been and are being destroyed, while a few have pocketed vast amounts of money.

Certainly evil stalks the world and lurks disguised.

dave | 7:00 p.m. April 10, 2009

To those who say, "the government could never have organized such a grand conspiracy as 911"

2 things.

1. No thoughtful examination of the evidence leads one to suspect the whole government did it. Rather, the evidence suggests that a corrupt network within the government and corporations did.

2. Here's an example. Bayer was convicted of selling a tainted blood product called Factor 8 to hemophiliacs back in the 90's. Hundreds of people who took it contracted AIDS and or Hepatitis from it and died. Now was that a grand conspiracy involving doctors and nurses, and lab technicians and the red cross etc. etc.? Of course not. All it took was a few psycho freaks occupying a few strategic positions within Bayer, or the Red Cross or government to ensure the proper conditions were present for the tainted material to get into the market, and an unsuspecting health and medical industry to simply do its job.

Pete | 11:08 p.m. April 10, 2009

It is encouraging to see so many people seeking evidence to bring some sense into what happened on 9-11, as the "official" explanation is not convincing. What is really pathetic is to read comments by those who oppose such research, refuse to consider evidence, and mainly try to defend their "official belief" with name calling, arrogance, stupid cutting comments and emotional drivel. Obviously that is all they seem to have, as they don't seem to offer any physical evidence. Very obviously, those who resort to mainly ridicule and personal attacks against the messanger, HAVE LOST THE ARGUMENT! For those really interested, there are many youtube videos and books available showing great strides in analyzing available evidence. The truth will win out, and such effort should be encouraged, in spite of the ridicule and spleen of those opposed to the truth.

Steve | 11:23 p.m. April 10, 2009

Once you realize a few truths in this world, you will be shocked at how simple it will be to forecast tomorrows headlines. Almost like watching a prophecy unfold before your eyes. Open your eyes before its too late. Get yourself a good education in Politics, economics and history. Thank you Dr. Stephen Jones. Following your research from the get go.

RE: Bogus Claims | 7:23 a.m. Apr | 11:26 p.m. April 10, 2009

I think this article is very interesting. I'm not quite sure what to believe at this point, but I disagree with the assertion that conspirators would have had to know which floors the plane would hit. I'm not an explosives expert, but logic tells me that the explosives could be ignited by the heat of a plane crashing into a tower, therefore explosives could be placed on any or all floors, to be ignited by the heat of a burning plane when the plane crashed into that floor.

I personally believe that a burning plane with a tank full of jet fuel could burn hot enough to melt steel and cause the floors to collapse on top of each other. The presence of explosive material doesn't prove anything, but it does raise questions that ought to be examined.

I'm not naive enough to think that this great country of ours, the greatest in the world in so many ways, has never done anything evil or sinister, because unfortunately we have. :( But these theories are pretty hard to believe, almost unfathomable. Killing thousands of your own citizens in cold blood? Not sure I buy it.

Anonymous | 12:07 a.m. April 11, 2009

Personally, I am delighted that there is so much wonderful debate and extraordinarily, varied views.

Those views show concern. They convey intelligence.

Most of those views insist that we still question and challenge our Public Servants. And that is very healthy

So, Let's challenge those public Servants.

What do you have to loose besides our freedoms which are already compromised beyond recognition.

But please never dismiss alternative, well researched evidence. Evidence that your Gov't does not wish to discuss

Do your homework, folks. It's all there on the internet ....

Cheers,

Mike,

Australia

PS

To the Boeing Engineer from a Commercial Pilot and Aerospace Engineer .... You are spot-on as are most of the participants/contributors to this dialogue.

Mike | 12:29 a.m. April 11, 2009

Thank you Dr. Jones,

we owe alot to you for bringing these things to light. I didn't at first believe the claims of 9/11 being an inside job, but your authority as a physics professor and your public stand motivated me to take a serious look at the evidence.

Much thanks also to Elaine Jarvik and the Deseret News. For those who still have not awakened to the truth, there is a mountain of evidence beyond what Dr. Jones has uncovered. For starters, try googling "Loose Change" of "Fabled Enemies" and download and watch these excellent documentaries.

Chris | 6:25 a.m. April 11, 2009

Im afraid you are a bit naive. The "country" didnt do 9/11, it only took a small number of people(the official story says it took 19 to pull it off, I would argue it took a few more than that but not a lot more. I find it telling that people like you are ok with the official story needing only 19 but if it was an inside job on some level it would take-"hundreds if not thousands".) and a broken and consolidated media who as usual failed to do their jobs. And you believe jet fuel fires could indeed bring down the towers huh? In the uniform WAY that they came down though? And its not like they fell in pieces, they both fell in the EXACT SAME MANNER. Really? You buy that? And WTC7 too? Really? It should be noted that Silverstien, the WTC leaseholder has deep connections to Likudniks in Israel, including Netanyahu, and that Marvin Bush and a Bush cousin Wirt Walker ran security on the towers up until 9/11. food for thought for when you cant "fathom" it. Google the names i listed in my previous comments. start with Suter.

Chris | 6:34 a.m. April 11, 2009

Also, you cant fathom a faction connected to our government(and a "friendly" gov) killing 3000? After the close to a million Iraqis weve killed? WHy is it that people like you cant fathom that the same political elites who treat foreigners like numbers and kill them in droves to reach their ends wouldnt turn around and kill a couple thousand americans to reach their geopolitical or personal goals? I believe that the people who really did 9/11 did it out of some disgusting sense of duty, they knew we needed a "big event" with large casualties to propel us into the middle east in a big way and they got it. Have you read the PNAC papers explicitly stating that regime change in Iraq would not be possible without a "Pearl Harbor" type event? Cheney,Zakheim,Libby,Bushs brother,Rumsfeld,Perle,Wolfowitz and lots of other top neocons are members and signed the paper in question.

sdemetri | 8:11 a.m. April 11, 2009

Someone wrote:

"I personally believe that a burning plane with a tank full of jet fuel could burn hot enough to melt steel and cause the floors to collapse on top of each other."

That was, and apparently still is, a common perception. But this is a misperception. The fires in the WTC didn't get to the 1500C necessary to melt steel columns. Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle said: "Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt."

NIST said in 2006 In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires."

Metallurgical tests on samples in fact showed that none of the sample got to more than 600C (NIST 2005, p176-177)

"Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true...." MIT prof Eagar.

The fires didn't do it. Explosives did.

Google | 9:31 a.m. April 11, 2009

I love that 'google' of all things is being used to back up peoples assertions.

Santa is a vampire! Google it!

I want to believe therefore its true.

mugtorte | 9:54 a.m. April 11, 2009

it's mathematically impossible for all these structures to (free fall) collapse into their own footprint- to suggest otherwise is admitting your lack of understanding of structural engineering and physics.

TJSgigante | 1:55 p.m. April 11, 2009

What if the real conspiracy is that the bombers put a bunch of that explosive stuff in their suitcases, so that everybody in the US would scream that it's all a conspiracy? :-|

Chris | 1:58 p.m. April 11, 2009

to "Google", Google isnt my source, I assumed you were capable of doing basic research-I could have easily said any search engine. My fault for thinking you were actually capable of basic research. I wont do that again.

Chris | 2:00 p.m. April 11, 2009

to "Google", maybe i'll drop some links next time since you dont seem to be capable of doing basic research. I'll do it for you buddy.

Jones | 2:05 p.m. April 11, 2009

For the answer follow the money to Isreal.

Wow | 4:32 p.m. April 11, 2009

To : "Google" (9:31 AM):

Nothing is inherently true or untrue due to its being on Google. But if you're willing to look at it, perhaps you can use your brain and take it from there.

Example: "There is a news source called 'Deseret News'. Google it and see." Another example: "Santa is a vampire." Your task: figure out which assertion is more convincing.

Nothing is inherently true or untrue merely because it is spoken or written. You have to be willing to research.

@chris | 5:03 p.m. April 11, 2009

Ha, Ha Ha Ha its those rascally neocons! I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the progressive, neofascists are much more murderous and subversive to the USA than are the neocons. They truly will do and say anything to meet their ends. Look to Clintons and all their foriegn friends. Look to Obama and all his anti-American friends.
get a brain, dude!

Wow | 6:24 p.m. April 11, 2009

To: "@chris" (5:03 PM): If in fact the "progressive neofascists" are as murderous as you say, one way to bring them down may be to go a bit deeper. Just maybe, there are forces enabling "both" sides to have increasing power and control. By forces, I'm speaking about human greed in a variety of entities, corporations, etc.

If you want to get at those forces, one way is to find out what happened on 911. After all, do you see the DC Democrats jumping all over this new scientific paper? They should be, shouldn't they? They're not...and neither are the DC Republicans.

wake up | 7:24 a.m. April 12, 2009

amazing! here we have a total smoking gun and there are still people that dumb and brain washed that cognitive dissidence is the order of the day.
there are traces of unexploded military grade nano-thirmite people!
What else do you need to know before you people realize that there are people that need to be brought to justice!
and By the way, I love America!

dave | 9:54 a.m. April 12, 2009

@ wake up

true. but even more amazing is it's the LOADED GUN here.

I'm realizing that real criminals, corrupt power with access to overwhelming force, know that the best way to commit crime is right out in the open.

It's a bold physical challenge to all witnesses. Kennedy assassination, 9/11.

"who's gonna stop me", "who wants to be next"

You don't worry about law or decency. Do it in broad daylight. Have the cameras rolling. Go ahead, just leave the murder weapon sitting there with your prints all over it. Most won't have the bravery to look up and examine it let alone make an accusation, the few who do are easy to deal with. Call them crazy, ignore them. The rest will keep their heads down and amuse themselves watching football and American idol.

Confused, frightened masses will self organize around the new reality rather than confront it.

That is "the law" from the point of view of corrupt power.

Until the masses are able to look directly at the bully, we live under the bully's law.

Tony | 10:18 a.m. April 12, 2009

Professor Jones mentioned reading the paper and checking out Figure 29. Well, I did that much (Fig 29 and surrounding text, I mean). The figure is a comparison of WTC dust material with some material made with some components at a NANO-level. We're talking some serious stuff here, so much so that the paper broached the subject of who the heck can even make stuff like that.

To deny this material was placed is tantamount to saying it was chemically produced due to the conflagration and that would be tantamount to insisting that tossing carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen into some inferno would produce the DNA molecule.

To understand Figure 29 is to realize, "That's all folks!" It is a slam dunk.

I can just see whats next. The deniers who see this will say so what, implying that their once seeing validity in a jet-fuel caused collapse (and WTC7) was really no big deal when it was actually proof of incredible blindness and ineptitude.

(Hey, Prof Jones, I had the pleasure of chatting with you in Austin a couple years back at the 911 convention.)

Tony

Sitting-Bull | 11:29 a.m. April 12, 2009

Re:Bogus Claims:

The presence of explosive material doesn't prove anything

That- alone standing, is maybe right, but with all other facts, e.g. that indeed the buildings demolition do look like very much like common types of controlled demolition (even top-down is possible) where you took the interior structure out well before you see the roofline dropping as well, the molten metal, the iron-rich-spheres, but even circumstantial evidence like the cover-up of NIST ("forgetting" to explain the real collapse), the holes in the investigation (NFPA not followed), steel illegaly removed from the crime scene, NIST role with superthermites, the access to the building and data to possible perpetrators as TriDatas link to Zakheim and Securacom to the saudis shows, both installed after the 93'er bombing (inside job as well, google FBI Emad Salem tapes), and on and on an on...

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.