George Washington’s Blog I can debunk NIST’s new report - which claims that fires alone brought down WTC 7 - in one sentence. I’ll do so by linking to a New York Times article :

Partly EVAPORATED Steel Beams Were Found At WTC 7; But Normal Office and Diesel Fires are Not NEARLY Hot Enough to Evaporate Steel 

Hydrocarbon fires fueled by diesel (which was apparently stored at WTC 7) and normal office materials cannot evaporate steel. Steel does not evaporate unless it is heated to at least 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Everyone agrees that fires from conventional building fires arethousands of degrees cooler than that.NIST’s theory is a non-starter.Need more proof? Check out what these experts say: Read the rest of this entry »

Kevin R. Ryan | Journalof911Studies.com

pdf of this article from Journal of 9/11 Studies

“Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? … NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.”
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan 2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.

One of the most intriguing aspects of NIST’s diversionary posture has been their total lack of interest in explosive or pyrotechnic features in their explanations. Despite the substantial evidence for the use of explosives at the WTC (Jones 2006, Legge and Szamboti 2007), and the extensive expertise in explosives among NIST investigators (Ryan 2007), explosives were never considered in the NIST WTC investigation. Only after considerable criticism of this fact did NIST deign to add one small disclaimer to their final report on the towers, suggesting they found no evidence for explosives.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ken
November 8, 2007
WeAreChangeSeattle.org

For an hour today, Thom Hatmann had a productive and well represented debate about the generalized two major different conspiracy hypotheses:

• al-Qaeda (aka the Mujahadeen) planned and executed all events of the attacks of 9/11 and our military and federal agencies all failed in their duties.
• al-Qaeda (aka the Mujahadeen) played some unknown measure of a role in the attacks of 9/11 along with some unknown measure of a role also being enacted by elements within the U.S. federal government and possibly other national government(s).

Mr. Ryan was patient and tried to keep on pertinent points and often times took Mr. Shermer by surprise at the direction of the discussion. Why is this? In past debates, where Mr. Shermer was involved, he or others who are supportive of “the official story” get to both setup/frame the direction of the debate and then typically get the last response, enabling them to end each point of discussion further framing it and often smearing or scoffing at the other side of the debate. Mr. Shermer also seemed specifically surprised that the discussion went to non-strawman and non-hypothetical discussion. In fact, Mr. Shermer often made unfounded hypothetical judgements, theoretical statements and strawman arguments, a fact which he was called on once or twice by Mr. Ryan.

It quickly became clear that this pillar supporter of “the official story”, Mr. Shermer, has built his entire set of arguments around assertions no serious person in the Truth Movement asserts, though he (and others) pretend they do, and that he cannot counter simple logic, simple science and physics nor address geo-political and economic issues surrounding the 9/11 cover-up. Mr. Shermer has officially been discredited. Who ever has the next 9/11 debate, please get a stronger debater to parrot “the official story”, someone with some intelligence who can actually debate coherently when not allowed to steer the debate to his strawman talking points.

Following are two mp3s, the first hour is the debate and the second hour includes many callers to the show with their responses to the debate from the previous hour.

The Debate mp3

The Callers mp3

It is interesting that, as mentioned in Rep. Kucinich’s impeachment documents for bringing justice to VP Cheney (refer to video at 22:53 in), apparently our government is currently supporting the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan enabling them to launch attacks on Iranian police and military troops along the border (a proxy war). So, if our creation turned against us on 9/11, why are we still working with them?