Previous Update: May 6 - 12

Updates Index

(if there are any to speak of)
May 13 - 19, 2014

Red-Gray Chips at 9-11 Look Like Damning Evidence
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl -- Dancing Clown or Engineer? -- Goes by "Hassan Astaneh" too
Graeme MacQueen Speaks to Jolt NIST into Reality

[Before beginning: If you've sent emails that I've not responded it, it's likely due to a Yahoo glitch ever since Yahoo no longer allowed members to use their older, classic email system. Whenever my computer is knocked offline (happens often) due to a special item I use to acquire wireless Internet, and if I'm in the middle of replying to an email, the page is essentially destroyed (no longer operable), and my part of the email is saved in my email box where the emailer had sent the original email. My email replaces the emailer's email. This is very curious. The original email, as well as the email address, simultaneously disappears as my response is transferred to the page, so that I can no longer send an email to that person (unless I have their address in another email). This happened recently while writing to Dawson. So, if Dawson or someone else wishes to write in to have me respond again, please feel free. I have a response prepared, Dawson, no need to re-write your email.]

As the anti-Christ did not appear in Iraq by 2010, by which time I had expected him, I waited a few more years just in case. This past week, it was high time to go over my three Iraq chapters for this purpose, to update them. When I got to the parts on Vladimir Zhirinovsky, wondering whether he should be kept as part of the story, I noted that I spent some time on Yevgeny Primakov, a high-level politician who made it higher than Zhirinovsky has to date. Primakov was Russia's chief spy, prime minister, and foreign minister. This is what was added to one of the Iraq chapters:

I don't recall how he got the Primakov surname, but I should mention my work on the bloodline of Joseph Caiaphas (high priest of Israel who was responsible for Jesus's death). This work was culminated in the Iraq Updates within the first three months of 2014. The mother of Caiaphas was tentatively identified as Junia Caepio(nis) Secunda, by which method the family traced also to the Prime / Primo surname that I argued to be from Junia's sister. The Prime / Primo surnames are treated heavily in the first three updates of March (just two months ago as I re-write these Iraqi chapters), if you are interested.

I just thought it may have been meaningful, as Primakov never came to mind while I was predicting that the anti-Christ / False Prophet should be from the Caiaphas line. As Putin and Primakov are from the same circles in certain ways (both KGBers), one wonders whether Primakov-circle individuals are alongside Putin's foreign-affairs people. Whenever KGB is mentioned now, I see an angel in comparison to the NSA and the American leadership that has, for the past two administrations, raped America's pocketbook for the sake of global expansion. The very thing that America accused Soviet Russia was attempted by the "democratic" United States. Those of us who understand 9-11 saw exactly the type of democracy that they kill by. The current head-to-head in Russia's backyard could, of course, have everything to do with Armageddon, when the perpetrators of 9-11 shall, at last, receive their rewards.

Russia fell under Ronald Reagan, when a chief American spy, George Bush Sr, had become the vice-president. This Bush happened to invade the army of Saddam Hussein in the year that Primakov became the chief Russian spy. Primakov became very close to Saddam perhaps for that reason. But Russia was absent when George Bush Jr. invaded Iraq, suggesting that Saddam refused to form too-close a relationship with Russia. Yeltsin, still juggling a collapsing Russia that America sought to capitalize upon, removed Primakov as prime minister before one year had transpired, but Putin went on as Yeltsin's vice-president to become the quasi-dictator of Russia. In the presidential elections after Yeltsin's pre-mature retirement:

Initially considered the man to beat, Primakov was rapidly overtaken by the factions loyal to Vladimir Putin in the Duma elections in December 1999. Primakov officially abandoned the presidential race in his TV address on 4 February 2000 less than two months before the 26 March presidential elections. Soon he became an adviser to Putin and a political ally. On 14 December 2001, Primakov became President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

...On 11 December 2007, Primakov said at a meeting with Putin that the course followed by Putin should be continued, as Putin prepares to leave the presidency in 2008...

On 21 February 2011, Primakov announced that he would resign as President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, effective 4 March 2011.

...He is related to Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin.{citation needed}

Hmm, I had traced the Caiaphas line also to such surnames as Caesar, Cass, and Casey, much like "Kosygin." The Cosy surname is listed with Irish Caseys. I don't want to make too much of this, but thought I'd mention it.

The Crimean events have resulted recently in a move by other pro-Russian Ukrainians to seek independence. Putin seems to be playing this carefully, as though he's opposed to those who wish to come in under his wing. He's happy enough to show muscle against the West as per taking the Crimea from the Ukraine. If this has anything to do with Armageddon, and it might not, it's a confidence builder for Russia. It is also building steam in the United States for "blow-hards" to call for harder blowing. That is, there are some, especially on the Republican side, saying that America has acted weakly in allowing Putin to take Crimea. It's a dangerous position because Putin may not back down in a tit-for-tat struggle that's bound to escalate to a breaking point.

The next show of Putin muscle may be in Syria / Iraq. The latest has the Assad side winning in Homs, a key fight that's exhausted the rebels, who had retreated in mere days gone by:

The withdrawal, in line with a ceasefire agreement reached last week following a fierce, two-year battle, is a major win for Mr. al-Assad.

Militarily, it solidifies the government's hold on a swath of territory in central Syria, linking the capital, Damascus, with government strongholds along the coast and giving a staging ground to advance against rebel territory farther north.

Politically, gains on the ground boost Mr. al-Assad's hold on power as he seeks to add a further claim of legitimacy in June 3 presidential elections, which Western powers and the opposition have dismissed as a sham.

Assad, after promising to consider quitting as one means to end the civil war, has decided to run for the presidency again, all because the O-mericans lost in a game of chicken with Putin. The danger is that, in showing a flashing sword against Putin now may get the situation to the point of no return. The article goes on to say that "But Thursday's massive explosion in Aleppo was a powerful reminder that rebels -- although weakened in the country's centre and west -- re still a potent force elsewhere, particularly in the north." The north is where ancient Carchemish was located, where I think the anti-Christ will conquer into at roughly the time that he takes Iraq. Prophecy does not seemingly disclose whether he will take Syria before or after taking Iraq. It is, at this time, difficult to imagine a Russian anti-Christ fighting against Assad, but if the West succeeds in removing him, I can see Russians stepping in to take it.

Iraqi news has not changed over the years wherein dozens of Shi'ites die per car bombs and the like. Into the middle of this month: "A series of bombings in mainly Shia neighbourhoods of Baghdad killed at least 28 people Tuesday, officials said. The BBC said that eight cars packed with explosives hit during the ... " Amazingly, the world goes, ho-hum. Meanwhile, it's election season:

Iraq held elections on April 30. The results have yet to be announced [as of May 14], but Kurdish support is crucial to Maliki's ambitions for a third term. The incumbent premier's rivals, both Shiite and Sunni, are hoping Barzani and the Kurds will help them thwart Maliki's bid to stay in office for four more years.

The Kurds will once again use this opportunity to strong-arm Maliki into giving them their wishes in respect of some territorial and oil rights. The long ho-hum goes on there...while the focus is on America's next move in Syria after it lost its bid to bomb Assad's air force. In foreign-affairs America:

US Secretary of State John Kerry left [May 14] for a whirlwind day of diplomacy focused on the conflict in Syria and efforts to resolve the crisis in Ukraine.

...The focus of his trip though will be a meeting on Thursday of the core group of supporters of the Syrian opposition, and it comes just after UN-Arab League peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi stepped down after almost two years of fruitless efforts to end the war.

..."[President Assad] represents a continuation of the stubborn clinging to power of a man who is willing to drop barrel bombs on his people, to gas them, to shell artillery on innocent civilians, to starve people in their homes, and somehow claim a right to be able to run a country," Kerry added [not as bad as taking down two 110-story towers with American workers still inside].

...Syrian opposition leader Ahmad Jarba is also to attend after spending more than a week having high-level meetings in Washington in a bid to strengthen US support for the rebels in their battle against Assad.

Specifically he pleaded for anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down regime aircraft which are unleashing deadly barrel bombs on Syrian civilians.

The talks would focus on "the international community's efforts to ease humanitarian suffering inside Syria, to bolster support for the moderate transition" and advance moves for a political transition, a senior US administration official said.

"The US understands the urgency of the crisis in Syria and stands firmly on the side of the Syrian people" [phony-baloney], the official said, asking not to be named.

How shall we read these words? The U.S. is seeking to set up a pro-US Syrian government even while Assad is growing stronger, even while Obama just fainted into the outfield background as Putin stepped up to the plate, muscles ripping clear through his upper sleeves. The pitcher tried to force him to walk, but Mr. Kerry's knuckle ball hit the UNpire in the head, causing him to resign mid-game. Who Not Me is on first, What a Mess is on second, and I Don't Know Nothing is on third. Putin's military bases are loaded, and Obama stands in mid-outfield in denial, with his glove on his head, and both index fingers in his ears to keep from hearing the awful crack of the bat.

How does America set up a new government in Syria by merely sending Kerry over to Syria, or by entertaining the rebel leader with diet tea in Michelle's White-House kitchen? I'm sure it was a little offensive for the rebel leader to visit fat-cat Obama's house while he and his men live like rats on the streets. Michelle wore her $467,000 dress in the colors of Syrian flag, and Mr. Jarba complimented her, of course. What do we imagine that Obama said to the rebel leader when he begged for a few missiles? "They don't need to be fat ones, lean ones will do," Mr. Jarba said. "I promise not to eat at MacDonalds for six months."

Obama knows the next plan for Syria. Having suffered Putin's grand slam, the team is over in Syria building up morale. There is still some time before the competing pipelines to Europe are finished, but the deadlines are closing in fast, and the Kurdish-oil situation is unpredictable as we speak. I'm still waiting for Russia to send Mr. Dip-Stick to Iraq to see things through, but have not got a clue as to how he will accomplish it under the circumstances. It will take brazen confidence, but, safe to say, he's pretty-much achieved that. Putin is torn between supporting the Kurds and supporting Maliki as the latter two argue over the greater piece of the oil rights. The Kurds should not be happy to see Mr. Dip Stick enter Iraq.

While going over the Iraq chapters yesterday, I confessed that another invasion of Iraq may be needed before Daniel 11:21-24 can be fulfilled. To put this another way, the world could be one or more generations away from end-time prophecy. Just the same, I feel compelled to keep watch on the developments. My eye lids are closing in sleep repeatedly as the ho-hum lingers seemingly without end. But I've got toothpicks between both lids to keep them from closing. The Iraq Updates shall go on so long as the Syrian situation remains volatile, even though nothing changes in Iraq.

Just before the days of Ezekiel, the Cimmerians in the Crimea invaded Armenia...with the Royal Scythians (Gog, in my opinion) chasing them out of the Crimea. The Royal Scythians followed south and entered Media, where they remained for almost 30 years. If I recall correctly, an early-20th-century volume of Britannica claimed that modern Kurds are the ancient Medes. Both the Cimmerians and Royal Scythians went on to conquer parts of Anatolia as far west as the Lydio-Greek world. Does this mean that we could expect a repeat in some ways for the last days under Mr. Dip Stick? I read on how Zhirinovsky despises Turkey; could that be a general trend in Russia today?

Vladimir Zhirinovsky had harsh words to speak against Turkey even before that country lashed out against Assad. Turkey is now a major "battleground" for the pipeline competition between Russia and the West. Might Mr. Dipstick also subdue Turkey, the ancient Anatolia? Is that what Carchemish is about?

Are John Kerry's accusations against Assad correct? Did Assad really use chemical weapons against his own people, or, did he truly starve his own citizens:

Syrian rebels who evacuated Homs after a two-year siege and daily bombing are rediscovering the simple joy of eating well and resting. But many feel far from home and dream of return.

"In the last months of the siege, all we had left to eat were the leaves off the trees," says Abul Joud, an activist and native of Homs' Old City.

Oh, you mean those "citizens"? I see, I see. But wait, it goes on: "Now, after all that hardship, the guys are eating eight meals a day, and sleep a lot, trying to recover." "It's really funny, we were happy even to have onions!," he laughed. "We were munching onions like apples, and kept asking for more,"..."We walk through the market and wonder how all the people we see just went about their normal lives, while we were under the bombs." One could blame the O-West for urging them to fight on, then not coming to their rescue. That's exactly what the rebels accused.

Is the war nearly over? It depends on Obama, I suppose. What did he send Mr. Jarba home with? Onions? In my opinion: the Assad government is angelic compared to the United States. Ask 9-11 and the persecutions and spy programs in its aftermath.

What Are Those Red-Gray Chips?

The perpetrators of 9-11 had secured the post office for use in their cover-ups and to monitor what their internal enemies were doing:

It has been over a year since the most recent peer-reviewed scientific article was published on the finding of energetic [thermite-suspect] materials in the WTC dust. During this time, the article was personally delivered to members of Congress and others in positions of power. Some of those leaders, like 9/11 Commission co-chairman Lee Hamilton, have repeatedly declined invitations to discuss the evidence. But ultimately, there has been no official response by the U.S. government, and we have seen only apathy or feigned ignorance in response to these explosive findings. In the last few months, however, one of the people who did the most to cover-up the crimes of 9/11 has surfaced again, and is requesting samples.

Immediately after the article was published, it appeared that a response might be forthcoming due to inexplicable damage to several packages sent, via the US Postal Service, between some of the investigators who were involved. When my colleague Steven Jones sent a sample of the red-gray chips to my post office box in late April 2009, the samples had been removed from the double envelope package through a series of slits just barely big enough to slide the small vial out. The postal inspector never responded to my complaint. But when I later mailed something to my colleague James Gourley, the envelope arrived with a corner ripped out, in a gross kind of damage that neither of us had ever seen.

How do you assess that situation? Doesn't it appear to be a Brotherhood scheme? The Middle East has it's Muslim Brotherhood for World Control, and the U.S. has it's Brotherhood for World Control. Which do you think is the greater killing machine? It goes on:

Over the next few months we saw unprecedented attacks levied on the journal that published the paper. The editors of the journal were pummeled with email and blog attacks and one of them, who had not been involved in review of the paper, resigned. Some attackers even sought to discredit the Bentham Science family of journals, of which the Open Chemical Physics journal was one member, by submitting phony articles to see if they could get published...[this is where the goons attacked the journal rather than the science that it had published]

...Gene Corley was not hired by FEMA to examine the WTC dust. He was hired by FEMA to lead the entire WTC investigation, which at the time was termed an "assessment." Six years earlier, Corley had also led the investigation into what happened at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, and the resulting report was found to have been very poorly done.

For years after 9/11, Corley was the voice of the ever-changing, but always non-explosive, story for what happened at the WTC.

•He led the FEMA investigation which gave us the now defunct "pancake theory"
•Five months later he was a member of the Silverstein-Weidlinger insurance claim team that produced the "columns only" theory (opposite of the pancake theory).
•He was the primary official theory spokesman in all the mainstream media video programs, including those produced by NOVA and the AE/History Channel, that were for years used as the major vehicles for public consumption.
•Leftist commentators like Matthew Rothschild [rare find of that surname] turned to Corley to provide "independent" confirmation of the official story.
•He provided "public comments" in support of the NIST investigation.
•He helped produce the NIST WTC 7 report as indicated by the fact that he is listed in NCSTAR 1A as one of NIST's "experts and consultants"
• And last but not least, he posed as a reporter during NIST media sessions, lobbing softball questions to kill the time

It's a sad commentary to read things like this. The government of the United States runs like any ordinary dictatorship, inner puppets in place, except that it has a giant brotherhood to appeal to throughout a conglomerate of the outer circles, very willing to break the laws for the inner-circle causes because the courts are themselves controlled by-and-large by lawless brothers. It's impossible to respect a "democratic" nation like that, which seeks to enforce democratic reforms around the world in the meantime.

It's necessary to understand what the red-gray chips look like in order to properly make an initial assessment of their origins aside from what chemical analysis may tell us. At the page below, where James Millette describes his experiments in an effort to debunk the truthers, it is suspicious that he hasn't shown pictures of his experiments. It seems like the logical thing to do. He does admit, however: "At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1)."

It's an admission that cancels the attack from the goon side because, in their celebrating the red parts to be only epoxy resin = paint, they can't point to where in the buildings this paint had been. It's not a small problem because it calls the paint conclusion into question. Millette did not venture to suggest what other steel parts in the building, aside from the columns, these chips may have originated from. His side obviously considered giving an answer for that idea, but there were zero options, for even the government-supporting bloggers are stumped, meaning that the government side hasn't fed them their ammunition by which to lead the attack at the Jones / Harrit circle.

Both Millette and the opposing side use "red/gray chips" instead of "red and gray chips" or "red chips" or "gray chips," suggesting that the red and gray originate slivers of painted steel, but not necessarily painted steel. Truthers say it's not paint, but nano-thermite. I've yet to read any truther who admits this substance to be paint, yet it's very important, for the long haul, that truthers not stand by false fact-finding. Even Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who are trying to make a name for themselves, are willing to stand behind the Jones / Harrit claim for these chips.

The fact that the chips were attracted by a magnet once again suggests that the red and gray parts are one unit, for the red parts (aluminum clay and iron oxide) had no magnetic elements (iron oxide and aluminum are not magnetic). It is very difficult to explain the origin of such chips regardless of how one identifies them materially. How could the thermite remain on the steel while not burning? That is, what shaved these pieces so small and yet failed to ignite their thermite side? If we say that neighboring, burning thermite caused these chips to form, why didn't the thermite burn upon these chips? How else could the chips have formed aside from being positioned beside burned thermite? I've not read anything from any truther specifying in some detail their origins.

The fact that the a magnet was required to accumulate the chip samples (from within the dust) summarizes how the chips were not large. Millette shares their typical thicknesses but not their lengths / widths: "The red layers were in the range of 15 to 30 micrometers thick. The gray layers were in the range of 10 to 50 micrometers thick (Appendix B)." Twenty-five micrometers is shy of 1/1000 of an inch, but Jim Hoffman (truther) calls them "as thin as eggshells," i.e. thicker than 2/1000 of an inch. Perhaps Hoffman was speaking allegory off the top of his head. Many of the chips were as long as an eggshell is thick, that being about 1/50th of an inch thick, though some chips were as long as ten eggshell's thick.

If they were truly pieces of metal with their red paint / primer still in contact, and if they were created by steel striking steel in normal collisions during the collapse, why shouldn't there have been gray, steel-only chips without the red layer? I'm not reading from anyone that there were steel bits without red layers. Or, how much "dust" of this size does one expect from normal collisions of steel as would be expected in the collapse of the buildings as we saw them? Should such bits permeate the dust?

Millette says that he separated particles of the chips using Low-temperature ashing...LTA was performed for time periods of 30 minutes to 1 hour depending on the size of the chip. The gray layer remained intact and the red layer residue was collected... The red was then inspected in isolation from the gray, and found to be aluminum silicate...not good for the truther claim. He does not say that he found many or any gray chips without the red attached, but to not have them in the dust seems impossible where he concludes that he was inspecting painted steel, for steel structures like columns, beams and trusses have paint merely on their surfaces. We who are honest, unlike Millette, expect more steel fragments from the interior parts of steel structures than from the surface...if indeed these particles were caused by certain frictional contact between steel during the collapse.

How do you imagine steel melted by nano-thermite? When presented quickly / suddenly with a heat source higher than the melting point of steel, it is predictable that some of the steel will fall away in droplets and quasi-melted chunks, and roll away on floors while forming some small particles the size of dust. But this would not tend to create a predominance of dust with paint or thermite still attached.

A chemist could tell us whether pure aluminum in the presence of clay-utilizing primer paint, in extreme temperatures, could form some aluminum silicate. It is formed somehow, naturally, in the earth, usually meaning that formation is due to high temperatures and/or high pressures. On the other hand, I'm not so sure that Millette told the truth when claiming the red substance to be clay-utilizing primer.

Millette's opponent, in the page below, adds pictures of various sorts, and even one of the red-gray chips: "Figure 9. Optical microscope picture of red/gray chip after reaction in a DSC instrument." Mr. Millette claimed to separate the red residue from the gray particles in a kiln heated to 400 C, but his opponent, Niels Harrit, says: "In contrast to the primer paint [in the Trade-tower columns], the red/gray chips react violently, igniting in the neighbourhood of 430 C." Why didn't Millette make a similar comment? Because it would destroy his claim in that clay does not burn.

You'll see other pictures of the chips below that look different than the one in the page above. Mr. Harrit concludes: "The properties of the primer paint and the red/gray chips are inconsistent. The red/gray chips cannot be the primer paint as it is characterized by NIST." The goon side cannot argue against this statement, for even Millette tended to agree. Therefore, of what value can the goon side consider it merely to attack Harrit's character while ignoring this claim? It has no long-standing effect to attack him cheaply, but, as it is, that's all they have at this point. Millette's statement (2012) denying the chips to be from the primer in the columns comes after the goon side claimed for some years that the red substance was that paint.

There is a great, high-resolution shot of the outer columns at the Harrit pages above that I've not seen before, and, by the way, there was a correction made in the last update that this image was responsible for. I had treated the spandrels in the World Trade towers as having two steel plates. On Wednesday of this week, I learned otherwise, and added the following to the last update:

Up until two days after this update was placed online, I was under the impression, from pictures such as this one, that spandrels had two faces/plates, an inner and outer one. That is, they look like rectangular boxes. I then ran into this image, showing the spandrels from above, and exposing that spandrels are just one plate of steel. I then took another look at the column hanging in the air at this image (I had failed to look at the spandrels when seeing this many times previous) to find that, indeed, the spandrels are just one plate of steel. I apologize for envisioning the wrong thing, but am happy to clear this up because I could not understand why a box design would be used for attaching floor joists.

Also, up until now, I thought that spandrels were thin metal, two faces each in the range of 1/4 inch. I cannot fathom any reason for having them 1.375 inches thick. Perhaps for sway purposes, but certainly not for maintaining column integrity.

While the error rectified the NIST figure of 6,300 tons for total spandrel weight, it caused the weight / thickness of the outer columns to increase, though another factor, my error in not reducing the spandrel weights sufficiently by sheer oversight of the soft-brain kind, changed the column thicknesses yet again. It's okay to feel stupid sometimes.

Perhaps the video below shows other pictures of the red-Gray chips. Mr. Jones says, "The chips are bi-layered, red on one side, gray on the other -- and present in all four samples that I and colleagues are exploring in depth at this time." It suggests widespread chips permeating the whole of the dust to a certain distance from the footprints of the towers. In the blog, Jones says:

When you get the full talk, you will see that I hypothesize that the red side of the chips represent ultrafine "super-thermite", which as explained in my first paper is explosive, producing a jet of molten iron. The microscopic image presented shows the ultrafine aluminum mixed with Fe2O3, but still with "clumps" on a microscopic scale. Thus, from spot to spot on a red chip, and from chip to chip, one expects to see variations in the ratios of Al and Fe.

Explosiveness is perhaps how Mr. Jones tends to explain the formation of the chips in the first place. I suppose it's possible that explosiveness from a steel surface predicts, not so many internal chips of steel without the red layers, but more steel with red layers. I can somewhat envision red-gray chips forming even apart from explosiveness. Instead, because thermite can burn without explosion, forces of extreme heat on a metal surface may have spit pieces of surface metal pop-corn flying away.

Here's Mr. Jones' video:

Another blogger on the Jones-video page comes out with a knock-me-down news story from the early 1990's, explaining how the goons had easy access to the entire building's frames for eight years prior to 2001:

Copper cabling helps multiply power capacity at WTC.

September 1 1993

Since the World Trade Center (WTC) opened its doors in New York City 22 years ago, growing clusters of electronic devices have begun to burden the center's electrical system...

To address the situation, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, the WTC's owner, has decided to revamp the system with an electrical upgrade that will take an estimated 10 years and $81 million to complete. The project will involve extensive use of copper cabling.

That permits provides the excuse for working virtually anywhere within the building, especially through the core.

Until I read from truthers that the red material is aluminum silicate / paint / clay, I'm simply going to treat the Millettes of the world as fabricating their results. Truthers, the minority, can't afford to play such games of denial, and so I don't expect their high and visible levels to do so. But I fully expect the goons to bite their nails to the bone until they come up with acceptable fabricated "science" to give their fan club something to talk about in their blogs. This is a war involving mass media, and, as in any war, ammunition needs to be provided, blank bullets and pea-shooters being better than nothing.

I was just at such a blog where, seeing that the column primer had been ruled out, the topic was the origin of the "paint." The post was asking what other parts of the tower could have provided the paint, if not the columns. No one could give an acceptable answer, and yet they were all sure that the red part of the chips was paint. And they ridiculed Harrit and Jones, of course. That doesn't rise to the level of pea-shooter. It doesn't even scare anyone as might blank bullets. If it scares anyone, it causes government-supporters to maybe re-think their position. Do they really want to be in a camp of clowns who talk this way? I'm not trying to mock the other side, but am showing how they mock themselves by offering nothing but mock. By "clown" I don't mean merely cheap, but altogether fake. Faked know-it-all. The bloggers are skilled at faked know-it-all.

Here's a multitude of pictures from a no-name webmaster showing only red chips, and claiming that they don't burn even at 900 C, and, of course, the page is suspect from the goon squad as a piece of computer-altered "artwork" rather than showing true chips. He/she of course concludes that Harrit and Jones are wrong. He/she says: "I had also obtained the same spectra with very large Carbon peaks in earlier observations on similar redredchips from these and other samples..." but the page provides no personal name, no company name, no lab, no nothing. It's the epitome of faked know-it-all.

The Harrit claim is getting around:

Good afternoon, my name is Richard Gage, AIA. I m a member of the American Institute of Architects; I've been a licensed architect for 22 years; And I'm the founder of the non-profit organization, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth).

As a group, we now have more than 1,270 architect and engineer petition signers. Collectively, we have more than 25,000 years of building and technical experience. This press conference is being given by our petition signers and supporters today in 65 {it turned out to be 67} locations around the world, including 30 states and 4 countries.

Today, we're here to inform you that we have uncovered evidence that the official investigations into what happened to the World Trade Centre skyscrapers on 9/11 were deeply flawed, or worse. The scientific forensic facts we have discovered have very troubling implications.

For example, a technologically advanced, highly energetic material has been discovered in World Trade Centre dust from the 9/11 catastrophe.

This follows the discovery, by the United States Geological Survey and others, of high concentrations of unusual previously molten iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust. These microspheres can only have been formed during the destruction of the World Trade Centre at temperatures far higher than can be explained by the jet fuel and office fires. Those fires, we are told by engineers employed by NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, were allegedly the cause of the World Trade Centre s destruction. The discovery of this advanced energetic material, in the form of red/grey chips distributed throughout the dust, both explains the iron-rich microspheres and confirms the inadequacy of the official account of what happened that tragic day.

...The energetic material that was found in the WTC dust by an international team of scientists (led by Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark) [round brackets not from tribwatch] was reported in the peer-reviewed Bentham Open Journal of Chemical Physics. It consists of nano-engineered iron oxide and aluminum particles 1000th the size of a human hair, embedded in another substance consisting of carbon, oxygen, and silicon. The sizes of the iron oxide particles are extremely UNIFORM [caps mine], and neither they nor the ultra-fine-grain aluminum platelets could possibly have been created by a natural process such as a gravitational collapse or the impact of jetliners. The red/grey chips in which these particles were found exhibit the same characteristics as advanced energetic materials developed in US national laboratories in the years leading up to 9/11. They have no reason to be in this dust. Given all the horrific costs in human lives, lost civil liberties, and trillions of tax dollars spent in response to the official account of 9/11, there can be no more urgent need than for our country and the world to find out who put those materials in the World Trade Centre and why.


There you have it, the bold claim, by a man representing a large multiplicity of engineers, that the "paint" consists of "nano-engineered iron oxide and aluminum particles." "Nano" simply means "small," and the accusation is that these particles are all about the same smallness because they were created = engineered that way for a purpose, for burning faster than if they were larger. The claim by Mr. Gage is not to aluminum silicate, but to "aluminum particles." Does Mr. Gage not understand the difference? Yes, he does.

His words above are dated 2010 while Millette's piece is dated 2012. Harrit's paper, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" (title does not mince words), was out in 2009. The goon side had to think of something fast to counter this wave, but Millette was not exactly fast, and his results were not exactly spectacular for the goon side, leaving it nothing but pea-shooters for the time being. This is the time to move in and capitalize on behalf of the truth with bazookas ablazing. But the goon side controls virtually all of the mass-media and political offices that can be appealed to for waging this war. A million pea-shooters versus one bazooka is not going to win the war for truthers but by a lucky strike somewhere.

Millette's supporters were going so far to say that the red paint was from such things as fire hydrants and filing cabinets, but the Millette's of the world won't subscribe to foolish notions like that. The Millette's of the world are clearly stumped because they can't point to a source great enough in the towers for their paint source. I'm sure that they had hoped to pass it off as the primer in the steel, but, alas, NIST had given a list/chart of the primer's constituents, forcing the Millette's of the world to reject it as the source of the red-grey chips. The goons committed to the primer report before the red-gray chips were discovered.

The old 1960's article shared in the last update made mention of a separate contract to install the trusses, suggesting the high likelihood that the trusses were painted with a different primer, but the Millettes of the world would know that. Therefore, even the truss primer is not likely applicable to the red chip substance. This issue seems to rest ultimately on whether Harrit is correct in claiming that the red material ignites and burns "vigorously" at 430 C. Clay / kaolin does not burn. Millette did not address this issue in his piece. If his sample failed to ignite, HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO WITH GLEE. The goons can stick that in their pea shooters and choke on it while inhaling aghast, because that's the killing effect of Millette's silence on this matter. Millette effectively back-fired into the face of the goon squad.

FACT: either he or others before him tried to ignite it to verify / discredit Harrit's claim. FACT: if Millette knew he had a fake, fixed sample with kaolin mixed in, then he did not bother trying to ignite it. FACT: if it had ignited, he / they would have remained silent about it, but if it had not ignited, Millette would have said so in his report. If I were you, I'd purchase stocks in bazookas. FACT; if they come out to say falsely that they tried to ignite it but failed, it gives the Harrits of the world the opening to advance their cause by conducting a counter experiment, say, on a mass-media educational channel. Better for the goons to simply ignore the Harrits and let them dwindle away...which is why now is the time to sound the bazookas from the housetops.

If Harrit is correct, it underscores the importance of having the Millettes of the world advancing an alternative theory at any cost. The more a theory/claim can be interpreted in only one way -- planned demolition -- the more the mainline educational channels will close their doors for fear of being labeled wacko. And so the educational channels choose to take the true wacko side, which constitutes the future world of your children. Neither liberal nor Christian wants this. Think of it in this way, that many people are going to take the goon side to the point where, on a subliminal level to begin with, they are going enjoy evolving into murderers, or adopting the mentality used by the military / CIA / FBI to perform 9-11. If you join them, you will become like them. It starts with mocking those who hold the truth, and thinking yourself to be wildly superior to them.

What's so wrong, anyway, with having a few thousand American casualties for a greater cause than the value of their lives? Their lives have little value, anyway. Can you imagine an amoralistic military evolving into thinking that way when it wants something badly? There can be no other organization as skilled in thermites as the U.S. military.

The page above has yet another photo of the chips, featuring one with the red side showing that's very chip-like. I'm assuming that the white specs within the red iron-oxide are regarded as the nano-aluminum particles. The specs do indeed seem to be the same size.

Here's a quote from Harrit's paper:

"As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron-oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900C) but very likely a form of super-thermite" (round brackets within quotes never mine).

In the interests of truth, the opposing side should relent until this claim is verified or discredited. There is no logic in attacking Harrit and his supporters prematurely. Do we really think that Harrit is willing to compromise his reputation on a lie? That's what the goon side will suggest without hesitation. Is it untrue that this material ignited? I've yet to read the goon side saying so. I've read truthers claim that Harrit's findings went unchallenged for nearly two years. All they had to do was show that the chips did not ignite as Harrit said they did. They didn't show that.

The words "burn" and "ignite" do not appear on Millette's report; he's apparently banking on fellow goons to spread his paint theory as truth, wholly ignoring the central claim of ignition. This is a man donning a clown's outfit, is it not? Why treat him with respect until he comes clean?

Wikipedia's article on thermite, thermate and nano-thermite fail to provide ignition temperatures. I had wondered why. The first I ever found of thermite's ignition temperature was in the quote above. It is not beyond credibility that ignition temperatures could be brought lower by various methods. I imagine that Harrit and others are not free to burn their samples at will because their samples are limited. Some are charging that their samples are unreliable, but then who's to say that Millette used a reliable sample? I'd expect the criminally-insane goons to use a false compound to save their necks. And criminally insane they are, make no mistake about it. The cold blood of their victims cries out.

Below is a black-and-white image of a chip's cross section, showing the steel layer clearly with the red layer on top.

Should we think that Niels Harrit and his circle are using false evidence? How far will that get them, and how quickly would that paralyze the truther movement? It's the culprits who have everything to lose, and so they are expected to provide false evidence when necessary. Here's more from Mr. Harrit's paper:

4. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in plate-like structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nano-thermite or super-thermite...The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not.

5. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite. (page below)

They can't get more blunt. They did not say aluminum-silicate, but rather "elemental aluminum." Millette denies this. Aluminum silicate does not burn, elemental aluminum has the very purpose of burning in the creation of thermites. When the oxygen trapped within the iron oxide is released upon reaching the ignition temperature, the elemental aluminum is then receiving the oxygen and, in the process, releasing exceptional amounts of heat, forming bright / vigorous flaming. A candle flame is not vigorous. Harrit used "vigorous" to denote rapid / bright. Nano-thermite (otherwise known as super-thermite) is more capable of cutting through steel (by melting it quickly) than a welder's torch.

It goes on:

8. After igniting SEVERAL [caps mine] red/gray chips in a differential scanning calorimeter run to 700ºC, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high-temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.

He's not mincing words, and is speaking floor-line, basic, simpleton physics to express what he deems to be the smoking gun against the 9-11 goon squad. His explanation is not too high to grasp, or spoken in ways that betray the truth by trickery. Every physicist knows what he's saying. After the vigorous burning, spherical iron (minus it's oxygen) was the product. It's well-known that iron spheres can be produced only by the evaporation of iron, which in turn requires molten iron. Clusters of iron suspended in air form spheres when the typical power of heat within the liquid jettisons them into the air (typical evaporation process). They freeze/harden in the air and thereafter remain spherical. You can see a few photos with them in the Jim-Hoffman article above.

Unlike Millet's page, Hoffman's page shows more chips. There is no shyness amid the truther movement to show these chips. One of the chips is about a quarter-centimeter long, very visible to the eye. "Despite their small size, the chips are readily visible in the samples because of their flat shapes, distinctive color, and layered structure. The chips are tough despite being as thin as eggshells."

If we ask why there were not pieces formed as large as an inch or more, the answer could be: there were, but they were too heavy to be transported very far as dust (i.e. along with the rest of the dust).

We can now go back to that 1990's article claiming that the Trade towers were re-wired between 1993 and 2001. It would be easy to wire the thermite layers for to ignite them using an electrical device(s). It seems, therefore, that the criminally insane were plotting to bring the building down since the first "terrorist" act against the same Trade towers in, coincidentally, 1993. I don't know the details of the 1993 attack, but am wondering now whether it was an accident from those who were installing the explosives at that time. They say it was a car bomb in 1993 (at the north tower), but was it really?

The owner of the building when the re-wiring was announced was still the Port of New York Authority. That organization is now suspect as a central part of the criminally-insane goon squad. Here's on the start of the World Trade Center:

David Rockefeller, president of Chase Manhattan Bank, who envisioned a World Trade Center for lower Manhattan, realizing he needed public funding in order to construct the massive project, approached Tobin [Executive Director of the Port Authority]. Although many questioned the Port Authority's entry into the real estate market, Tobin saw the project as a way to enhance the agency's power and prestige, and agreed to the project. The Port Authority was the overseer of the World Trade Center, hiring the architect Minoru Yamasaki and engineer Leslie Robertson.

...An estimated 1,400 Port Authority employees worked in the World Trade Center. The Port Authority lost a total of 84 employees, including 37 Port Authority police officers, its Executive Director, Neil D. Levin, and police superintendent, Fred V. Morrone.

...The Port Authority is jointly controlled by the governors of New York and New Jersey...

The governor of New Jersey at 9-11: "Christine 'Christie' Todd Whitman (born September 26, 1946) is an American Republican politician and author who served as the 50th Governor of New Jersey from 1994 to 2001, and was the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in the administration of President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2003"

Now from Kevin Ryan:

The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure suggests that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been applied to the steel components of the WTC buildings, underneath the upgraded fireproofing (Ryan 2008). This could have been done in such a way that very few people knew what was happening. The Port Authority's engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with evaluation of the fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of 'alternative materials' (NIST 2005). Such alternative materials could have been spray-on nano-thermites substituted for intumescent paint or Interchar-like fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems quite possible that this kind of substitution could have been made with few people noticing.

Not just the wiring, but, while they were at it, the fireproofing around the steel columns was "upgraded." And so where is the mystery as to how they may have applied explosives or non-explosive nano-thermites? There was even a report that the columns had to be inspected due to galvanic corrosion at the bolts, offering yet more access to the parts convenient for wholesale destruction.

Imagine coating all the columns with a thermite "paint" sufficient to make them bend (under weight) in seconds of time when ignited. The beastly demonoids pulled the buildings down with people still in them, and they planned it that way, first-degree mass murder. I cannot hold my breath. May Jesus Christ grant them their reward at the worst-time possible. Jesus did not come into the world to judge it, but to have mercy in salvation, and yet, He said, the Father would transfer to Him the power to judge at the Last Day. It is likely that the rats must be permitted to continue in power until the Last Day while being exposed along the way. This is what we are seemingly seeing.

[The topic above is continued in the 2nd update in June, where a reader here discovered that an organization with a Nazi past, Turner Construction, was doing the "upgrades".]

The following tends to show evidence that full / long lengths of columns were softened all at once, in which case an alternative theory of the column-buckle theory seems absolutely bang-on:

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, who specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings. He flew to New York on September 19, 2001 to conduct a two-week reconnaissance of the collapsed towers, hoping to gain an understanding of how they'd come down. He was able to examine numerous pieces of steel taken from Ground Zero.

He said the towers were exceptionally well designed and built, describing the WTC as "the best-designed building I have ever seen." Yet the structural steel had suffered unusual warping and other major damage:

Astaneh-Asl said that steel flanges "had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin."
At a recycling center in New Jersey, he saw 10-ton steel beams from the towers that "looked like giant sticks of twisted licorice." He showed the San Francisco Chronicle a "banana-shaped, rust-colored piece of steel" that had somehow "twisted like toffee during the terrorist attack."
He noted the way steel from the WTC had bent at several connection points that had joined the floors to the vertical columns. He described the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, "If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted--it's kind of like that." He added, "That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot--perhaps around 2,000 degrees."

In an interview in 2007, Astaneh-Asl recalled, "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center."
...He came across "severely scorched [steel] members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact [by the planes]."
...Astaneh-Asl saw a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7 -- a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11, even though no plane hit it. "The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."

Certainly, the weight of the falling building could do some major damage and bending to the steel sections, but men who know their steel can look for signs on whether the bending took place while cold versus hot. Banana shapes (even bending over long distances rather than sharp v-bending) are evidence of bending while hot, though admittedly not necessarily. It depends on how many bananas there were. Mr. Astaneh is a riddle because he seemingly makes statements that support the truthers, and yet there is evidence that he was intended as a player on the goon side. I'll come back to him below.

Mr. Ryan goes on:

Regardless of how thermite materials were installed in the WTC, it is strange that NIST has been so blind to any such possibility. In fact, when reading NIST's reports on the WTC, and its periodic responses to FAQs from the public, one might get the idea that no one in the NIST organization had ever heard of nano-thermites before. But the truth is, many of the scientists and organizations involved in the NIST WTC investigation were not only well aware of nano-thermites, they actually had considerable connection to, and in some cases expertise in, this exact technology.

Here are the top ten reasons why nano-thermites, and nano-thermite coatings, should have come to mind quickly for the NIST WTC investigators.

1. NIST was working with LLNL to test and characterize these sol-gel nano-thermites, at least as early as 1999 (Tillotson et al 1999).

...3. Science Applications International (SAIC) is the DOD and Homeland Security contractor that supplied the largest contingent of non-governmental investigators to the NIST WTC investigation. SAIC has extensive links to nano-thermites...

In an interesting coincidence, SAIC was the firm that investigated the 1993 WTC bombing, boasting that -- "After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, our blast analyses produced tangible results that helped identify those responsible (SAIC 2004)" [they framed people innocent of the bombing, didn't they?] And the coincidences with this company don't stop there, as SAIC was responsible for evaluating the WTC for terrorism risks in 1986 as well (CRHC 2008). SAIC is also linked to the late 1990s security upgrades at the WTC, the Rudy Giuliani administration, and the anthrax incidents after 9/11, through former employees Jerome Hauer and Steven Hatfill.

It doesn't look good for these groups. If one studies their computer habits and roaming, one will find them guilty of much more in the cover-up phase. They are keeping track of all the high-level accusations made against them, and they know the truthers who need to be watched. They have left online trails that, when and if they are finally forced to court / hearings, can be used against them. Their worst enemies are their fellow high-level operatives with whom they rub shoulders constantly or periodically, who have no pity or mercy, and who delight in justice.

After showing a magnification of 50,000 times of a chip's make-up, Hoffman says: "Up to this point, I have reviewed only characteristics of the chips revealed by macro- and micro-scopic visual examination, but already the implications are stunning: the chips are clearly a nano-engineered material with two types of extremely small particles, each highly consistent in shape and size, held in close stable proximity by a durable matrix which is laminated to a hard homogeneous material. The student of energetic materials will appreciate that this description matches exactly that of a super-thermite in which the reactant particles are suspended in a sol-gel matrix applied to a substrate." It's sounds like he knows what he's talking about, and welcomes others to appreciate his findings. He's got many images to speak by; it all looks professionally-based.

Why did the Harrit circle publish the thermite paper without the editor's knowledge / permission? My guess, before reading her statement, was that they knew she would not have allowed the article to be published. She admitted this:

..."They have printed the article without my permission, so when you wrote to me, I did not know that the article had appeared. I cannot accept this, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them", explains Marie Paule Pileni, who is professor with a specialty in nanomaterials at the renowned Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in France.

"I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal [MY journal?]. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period."

And that's why they did it without your consent, Ms. Pileni, because they knew. The owner of the page above then takes the issue to the point of: "The editor-in-chief's dramatic departure gives critics additional reason to doubt the articles conclusions...". Oh really? How does her position or attitude have anything to do with the merit of what's in the Harrit science?

I would suggest to anyone concerned: ignore the opposing side if all they do is shoot the messengers. Stick to whether or not the chips show thermite, because, if they do, the people ruling the "free world" are criminal lunatics and sociopaths of the real kind, dangerous, very dangerous. Harrit and his people are not playing games here, or involved for to see who's going to win this debate as though it were a sport or pass-time. Harrit and his circle have placed their lives in jeopardy over this, and perhaps the only reason that they still live is because their untimely deaths would serve only to underscore the on-going crime. Pileni may have disassociated from the Harrit group for fear of her life and that of her family. I understand that.

The United States is led by a Mafia-type band, pure and simple. This is the gleaning of 9-11. Their act has permitted the country to know. But it's far worse, for the world has been watching. Should they need another 9-11 to enter more fully into the Middle East, much of their own people are ready for them this time, and Russia already knows the 9-11 truth, as do even the Arabs on their streets. While the Middle-East project is put on ice, you can figure that the goon task will gravitate to undermining their internal enemies, first by spying on their correspondence and their activities, then by deciding on plans to stamp it out. It would be better if the goons are overtaken by a mass-movement of protest before it gets to that.

At the first signs of persecution, such a movement will begin. There is even an alternative military within the military ready to convert others against the goons. This issue is not going away. The militia groups around the country need to be stamped out, the goons well know, but will an effort against them backfire? The goons don't have the luxury of taking a Gallup poll to find out. But you can be sure that they have a long list of known enemies to be dealt with, each enemy listed further into a category to define their level of threat. 9-11 has started a drum beat; I can hear it in the comments of certain truthers.

The owner of the webpage above, writing in May of 2009, comes out with a theory that the red layers are...."paint." Yes, as early as that, the paint theory was on the table, making me suspect the owner, who calls himself Ron Mossad, as an insider. He writes: "In practice, the red layer of the wafers identified by the researchers contains exactly the same elements that we now know were present in the corrosion-resistant coating used during the construction of the World Trade Center, including the organic base constituted by linseed oil and alkyd resin." How would he know? In fact, he was in error, but by what authority was he speaking such a falsification at such an early time after Harrit's article?

The more the Mossads of the world roll on like fake know-it-alls, the louder I hear the drum beats against them. The Mossads of the world may be able to kick up some dust, but they have zero effect on scholars. The battle is for the true position of the scholar; not the verbal claim of the scholar, but the true position. In a public poll, the majority would claim taking the government side; in private talk, the numbers would be much more toward the truther side. The NSA wants to know what peoples' private positions are. The United States has become the Soviet America.

Ron Mossad goes on the cite, not the original primer at the time of the building's construction, but the re-surfacing of the steel that the truthers suspected as the thermite coating:

All this [nonsense / fuss]...over paint. And not just any paint...exactly the same type of fireproofing paint that would have been used by Turner Construction Company in the 1990's. In fact it is this same work order for "re-fireproofing" that is frequently cited as the basis for their conspiracy by the true believers! According to them this was be the exact opportunity to spray on the destructive nanothermite material that they claim would eventually knock down the World Trade Center.

So can we PLEASE move on from this topic now?

He puts it an exclamation mark as though the idea were ludicrous, and yet the truther accusation / suspicion is a decent line of reasoning. Like a drive-by shooter, Mossad then wishes to shunt off to the wayside...failing to stick around to address the science behind the Harrit circle. But a blogger pulls him back in by pointing out that this "primer paint" ignites. What about that, Mr. Mossad? I stopped reading after the second f-word, by which time it was obvious that Mr. Mossad is a distractionist. Below is where you can start seeking anything else that Millette may have said to benefit his case:;_ylt=AwrBTvgu6XRTw1UAvjPqFAx.?p=%22james+millette%22+chips&fr=sfp&fr2=&iscqry=

I'm not the only one saying it, that the other side is failing to address Harrit's science. I've been looking for the rebuttals, but can't find them. Here's a video regarding the BBC treatment of Niels Harrit (I can't comment because I'm unable to download long videos at this time):

i Here's a 2013 video wherein the comments are disabled. I wonder why YouTube would do that? Check to see if there is some ignition of thermite.

How many of you have ever used paint stripper on paint? It doesn't take long to soften it, does it. Yet Millette, in his own report, writes:

Samples of red/gray chips were placed in several solvents overnight and then subjected to ultrasonic agitation to determine if the solvents could dissolve the epoxy binder and liberate the internal particles. The solvents included methylene chloride, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and two commercial paint strippers used for epoxy resins. The commercial paint strippers, Klean-Strip KS-3 Premium Stripper and Jasco Premium Paint and Epoxy Remover, contain methylene chloride, methanol and mineral spirits. One red/gray chip was subjected to 55 hours of submersion in MEK, then dried and coated with a thin layer of gold for conductivity...

Well? What happened to the red stuff, Mr. Millette? I realize how tough it must have been to frame your words to make it appear as though the solvent turned it to mush. You soaked one for 55 hours, you say? That's long enough to eat the paint and the furniture too. Why did you let it sit that long? It wasn't working for you, was it, Mr. Millette, so you let it sit a few more hours, and then a few hours more, and then some. The darned stuff just wasn't getting soft, was it? So what happened, Mr. Millette, please tell us. He says: "Although the solvents softened the red layers on the chips, none of the solvents tested dissolved the epoxy resin and released the particles within."

Ahh, I see, he had to say "soften" because everyone expects it where it's mere paint, but in science, "soften" can take on many levels, even microscopic levels. How soft did it get, Mr. Millette? And why do you imply that the red stuff stayed on the gray steel after those soakings? We all think that paint stripper should strip away the paint from whatever its on. Look at how you chose your words carefully: "the solvents softened the red layers on the chips." I know what that truly means, that you were disappointed in the red layers staying on the steel chips, and yet you really didn't want to admit it, but you knew you had to tell, in order to come off as scientific as possible, whether or not the red stuff came off the steel by the 55-hour process, but you didn't want your army to know how hard it was, so you said that the material softened. You didn't speak point-blank because it would be equivalent to firing on your own army. In the process of playing it safe, you're looking very naked, Mr. Millette. You shot yourself in the foot.

Then, you were pained to report that the darned red stuff -- which you called epoxy resin untruthfully -- wouldn't even let go of its constituent particles, which means that it did not break down at all. But you didn't say it in proper English, as is expected when the very premise of your experiments is to decide whether or not its paint. You admitted subtly that the "paint" did not break down in the paint stripper, and yet you concluded that it was paint. Do you have no self-respect?

Less than a month after Millette put out his paper, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth put out this page:

In one of the tests performed by Harrit and other scientists, a red-gray chip was soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), which is a paint solvent [that's what Millette's samples soaked in for up to 55 hours]. While paint dissolves within a few hours upon immersion in this solvent, the red-gray chip did not dissolve, and remained in a hardened state after being soaked for 55 hours.

There you go, Mr. Millette, that's how one speaks plain English. In just two sentences, it conveys the fact that the "paint" was not paint because it did not break down as paint should. In just two sentences, your enemies have shot out your entire army, and have claimed you to be a fraud. Your fans all imagined gook when you said it "softened," and you misled them to think so. You called it "epoxy resin," making your stooges think that it was gook-like. You did not tell whether you could scrape it off the steel, or even if you scrape off a top layer upon itself. Therefore, it wasn't gook at all, was it Mr. Criminal Accomplice? It stayed hard after 55 hours, didn't it Mr. Rotten?

Here's another excellent statement from those the world has reduced to "nuts":

Since primer paint is primarily a ceramic material, it is chemically stable at temperatures up to 800 C [i.e. by design, since it is sprayed on steel to act in some part as an anti-fire agent].

In addition, the thermal tests on the red-gray chips revealed that when they are ignited at around 430 C, they create molten iron microspheres as a byproduct. Since iron does not melt until it reaches approximately 1538 C, this means a high-temperature chemical reaction occurred. This volatile reactivity makes this type of material extremely dangerous, disqualifying it from ever being used as primer paint (article above).

It's called plain English. It means that one does not spray a highly combustible material on a column / beam that's to be secured against fire, unless one wants to bring the building down by softening the columns and beams. You need to grow up, world, into the knowledge that Mr. Rotten has become desperate.

The Astaneh Riddle

Here's how some of the steel sent overseas was made safe to do so, as reported by CBS:

The plant is owned by a company called Hugo Neu Schnitzler [Germo-Jewish?], one of the country's largest steel recyclers. To process the World Trade Center steel, Hugo Neu hired 100 extra workers, who work on 12-hour shifts. The steel arrives from lower Manhattan by barge. Once at the plant, it is loaded onto trucks and taken to a seven-acre lot set aside for the project. Because the girders and columns range from two to ten inches thick - too wide to be cut by machine - the work is done by teams of welders, who are known as "burners."

The burners cut the steel into two- and three-foot chunks, each weighing about six tons. Using an enormous magnet, a crane lifts these pieces onto a three-story heap. Eventually the crane loads the pieces into trucks, which carry them back to the dock, where they are put into ships bound for steel plants in Asia, Russia or Turkey.

Was the decision to send the steel to these countries, including China, based on financial considerations, or for some political reason? Was it an attempt to show these nations that there was nothing suspicious concerning the steel? Might the fact that it was cut up into short sections be suspicious enough? In any case, it is obvious enough that the steel going overseas would have been handpicked to assure that no thermite residue or other evidence went along. There are two places, even three, where the separation of the evidence may have taken place: 1) at ground zero; 2) at Schnitzler's plant; 3) the seven-acre lot.

Does Schnitzler become an insider suspect. Of course. He's innocent until proven guilty, but, he is of course a suspect. It is possible that he knew the insiders prior to 9-11, arranging for this task beforehand. I imagine that New York decided to give him this task. All beams still retaining evidence of thermite or other explosives were to be heaped in a special pile where the wrong workers could not get at it. It's as simple as that. Then, something "funny"; a certain Hassan Astaneh went to Schnitzler's scrap yard to look over the steel for to put his mark upon those he says he wants to study for certain reasons. He places his mark on the worst-shape pieces of steel:

Hugo Neu has given Astaneh a corner of the lot in which to store his pieces. To keep these from being inadvertently chopped up, he writes his name on them in fluorescent orange spray paint. To an unpracticed eye, these saved sections look no different from the run-of-the-mill mangled metal. But to Astaneh, the contrast is clear. One clue is fire damage. Only those members that were subjected to very high temperatures - hot enough to burn away fireproofing and scorch metal -- could soften to the buckling point.

There's no way that the goons would allow this heat-damaged steel to go to non-insiders. This must have been the operation that gathered suspect pieces, and they were sent to a CORNER of the yard, not in the center, of course, but to a more private spot. Astaneh's job, we are told, is to figure out how the plane and its fuel interacted with the steel to deform it. Spit! That must be a falsified excuse for securing the evidence. We need to ask what happened to all the steel that Astaneh set aside. The whole curious world wants to know. Does he have pictures? Who sent him? For whom was he working???

Hassan Astaneh, a professor of mechanical engineering at Cal Berkeley, was the first engineer, who claimed, that the Twin Tower collapse was forced by melting of steel and testified in March 2002 on Capitol Hill. However only a few months later the original explanation was outdated. Another 2 year -investigation was announced in late 2002.,Hassan.shtml

I get it. The people controlling Astaneh (an Iranian) were paid to report the insider official line to the highest lawmakers in the land, which line was simply that the building softened due to jet fuel. The Wikipedia article doesn't have the common courtesy to give details on why the Astaneh storyline was abandoned for another investigation. It sounds like the Astaneh project got canceled due to turbulence from the truthers.

What's interesting is that we saw a certain Dr. AbolHASSAN Astaneh-Asl, "professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley," in a piece not far above, and he was at the Trade-tower site looking at steel there, to figure out, we are told, how the building came down. These two must be the same man. In CBS' first of two parts with Astaneh, Hassan Astaneh is portrayed as a private citizen who was merely curious, and that out of sheer curiosity he was permitted into the Schnitzler's scrap yard. It's ludicrous:

For the past five months, he has been consumed with reconstructing the last 100 minutes of the towers' existence. In January, he began a year's sabbatical so he could focus solely on that work [makes him sound like a volunteer].

"I want to know what happened from the moment when the nose of that plane touched the building...[blah blah]

Despite his expertise, Astaneh initially had no idea how to go about studying the twin towers' collapse...The week after the attack, he flew to New York [Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl arrived on the 19th, a week after the attack too], paying his own way. He didn't know what he would find. He learned that the steel from the buildings was being taken to a Jersey City scrap yard, where it was being chopped up and recycled. He made his way there and began examining the wreckage [makes it sound like he went alone, not sent by any organization].

Throughout the fall, Astaneh went to the yard. For weeks at a time, he visited daily, examining the steel as it arrived. While welders cut the steel into smaller pieces, he prowled around, looking for key "members," as the beams and columns are known.

CBS, anyone can see through this, er, scrap. It's plain that CBS was protecting the people behind Astaneh.

Astaneh was allowed to gather up to 300 tons, apparently: "The total steel in the buildings was 300,000 tons. I am looking for 300 tons, at the most. These are members that were hit by the plane. Those are critical. Also, I want to get hold of the members that were from floors where the planes went in and the fire went on; they were in the fire, and they are the reasons why this whole collapse started." Clearly, he was chosen for a task before the buildings went down. He sounds as though he's speaking a script. An honest structural engineer would know that a plane could not slip its way into that building, but Astaneh has absolutely no problem with the idea, because he was in New York to "prove" that it happened.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have structural engineers, and yet, from the top, the organization takes the position that the planes went through the towers. Clearly, the org is backward in this way, not wishing to lose much of its membership for speaking what is the obvious reality. I have not seen an engineer's report on a step-by-step entry of the plane, how the two items -- wing spars versus the columns -- would sustain damage. Astaneh says that he wanted to know exactly what happened from the second the plane "kissed" the building, and yet I see no link at CBS to anything written by him on such a topic. I've searched online articles with his name too.

Below is about the best one will get on his findings, where he claims 1500 degrees C at the crash zone, but there's no science shown behind the claim. He says that conspiracy theories are not needed because the building was "lightweight," yet he admits that he wasn't given the dimensions of the steel from which to make his assessments. That sounds like lightweight science to me.

In the following, one could get the impression that the goons hired the same people for to assess the bombing of at least two different plots:

Mr. Astaneh-Asl says he knew immediately that he wanted to be a part of the scientific response to the tragedy. He felt that his unique expertise could help in understanding how the two towers collapsed. He was well versed in the effects of terrorist bombings on buildings, having conducted research on blast effects after a car bomber brought down the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

...The day after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Mr. Astaneh-Asl submitted an emergency grant proposal to the National Science Foundation asking for money to examine the steel at ground zero firsthand. Only days later, the request granted...

The National Science Foundation wouldn't have been able to allow him into the scrap yard if New York didn't want him there, or if the owner of the yard didn't want him there. Was he the only curious George in all of America? What a stroke of "luck" that things went so well for him in a matter of days. There are signs in the article above that Astaneh was not an insider himself, but I have great difficulty seeing that way.

...but Mr. Astaneh-Asl says he had hoped that, considering the circumstances, the [blueprints of the towers] would be made available to researchers [i.e. himself included].

He nearly got access by joining an investigation team led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers, which brought together some two dozen researchers and engineers in late 2001.

Mr. Astaneh-Asl was initially asked to participate, but he says he was troubled that team members were all required to sign a nondisclosure form promising to keep certain details of the investigation, including the buildings' architectural plans, to themselves. Mr. Astaneh-Asl's says he felt the agreement violated his academic freedom, and so he resigned from the team before its investigation got under way.

The leader of that investigation, W. Gene Corley...

This is the riddle concerning this Astaneh. He does not sound like an insider in that statement, yet I cannot fathom anyone but an insider getting into the scrap yard in smack one week's time where New York or the yard owner could delay his entry indefinitely by any of a multitude of methods. Perhaps, because he knew that some came to suspect him as an insider, he made statements to the effect that cleared him of being such.

Corley claimed that "he believes the wording of the nondisclosure agreement would not have stopped any participant in the investigation from publishing academic papers about the structures. 'It essentially said that we would not use information we obtained there to be used in a lawsuit against the owners and designers of the building,'..." Corley is seeking to justify the non-disclosure requirement, but it sounds like an excuse. If the Port of New York Authority was truly worried about law suits based on people knowing the dimensions of the steel, it would have bucked against Astaneh before he arrived to New York.

Do we think that New York had no say on who could or could not enter the scrap yard? Only if New York had not cut a deal with the owner of the scrap yard. Only if new York chose an non-insider in choosing the owner of this scrap yard. But that's unthinkable. For this conspiracy to be carried out, New York had to be involved, and New York would therefore have needed a fellow insider to remove the steel. If Astaneh was not an insider, would he be "invited to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Science, in March of 2002, at a hearing titled 'Learning From 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center.'" The line is in the article above.

As a result of finding himself before the high-level hearing, FEMA was directed to send him a copy of the tower plans, and, upon receiving them, the first thing he does is scream on how lightweight the building was, exactly what we would expect from an insider, "adding that in some places the steel in columns was only one-quarter of an inch thick". In some places? Does he leave these places to the imagination of the hearer? Was it merely on the top floors that such thin metal was used? Can we even trust the papers that FEMA sent him? Let's not forget, it was this man whose job it was to report on how the airplane managed to slip into the building, and someone even called him up, the article says, to offer him a software program [was it fixed to begin with?] wherein he could create a real-to-life "video" of the crash, which he did, and he even presented this at the hearing. It sounds faked and pre-arranged.

As a result of such design elements, [Astaneh] argues, when the two airliners smashed into the upper floors of the towers, both planes plunged all the way in, wings and all. Airliners carry much of their fuel in their wings. His model clearly shows that in the initial fight between the plane and the building's exterior, the plane won, easily breaching the structure.

"It's like a soda can hit with a pencil," says Mr. Astaneh-Asl. "It was so easy that the plane went in without any damage and took the thousands of gallons of jet fuel in."

Impossible garbage especially coming from a structural engineer. We shouldn't be fooled by the apparent fact that he and Corley were disputing, for it seems to many that political disputes are often faked publicly to give the impression of authenticity. In this case, the Corley-Astaneh dispute actually serves to reveal a bogus reason for excusing Astaneh from using the proper dimensions of the steel. It makes Astaneh appear genuinely concerned for having the dimensions, and meanwhile protects his science from legal / professional onslaught because he admitted to be taking a guess. Yet, this guess was permitted into congressional hearings. Perhaps, when one congressman suggested that FEMA release the true dimensions to Astaneh, it was a veiled slap on his wrist for using dimensions that were sorely deviant from the reality.

If Astaneh wishes to clear his name, release to the public the dimensions of the steel. Did FEMA require that he not release them? FEMA has no right to require it. One cannot argue, "we cannot release the information due to the need to protect a criminal or one guilty of breaking the building-code law." If true that the Port of New York Authority was guilty in building the tower too lightweight, no one is required by law to protect the Port of New York Authority. Corley was stating that the dimensions were to remain insider knowledge in order to protect the Port of New York Authority, but if the latter was guilty, Corley had a duty to reveal the dimensions regardless of what the legal system might wish to do to the Port Authority.

Is it not obvious that the intent of the non-disclosure form was to protect the perpetrators who took down the buildings? Where is Astaneh's treatment on Building 7, which he knows could not fall due to fire??? If the towers were so lightweight, prove it, mister Astaneh. Tell us the steel sizes where the planes slipped in, wings and all. Show us your paper, or anyone else's paper, with the engineering math to show what level of kinetic energy the plane would have retained after colliding with the first column, the second column, the third, and so on. It's easy for a structural engineer to do provide such math if he has the yields and the dimensions of the columns. If you have them, mister Astaneh, show us your math; otherwise go down in infamy.

At the hearing in the House of Representatives, upon being questioned, his response is exactly what the goons would have pre-arranged:

...The purpose of collecting the perishable data is to collect material samples, photographs, videotapes, drawings and data on design, construction and collapse. Using the information collected and by conducting the necessary analyses and research, we try to establish probable causes of the collapse and most likely scenario for such collapse.

The original page ( where obtained this page is no longer available, which is itself suspicious as well as not surprising under the circumstances of the Astaneh plot being a dismal failure.

The page shows a few photos compliments of Astaneh, and the two showing exterior columns naturally show thin-wall columns lest we get the impression that the building was made of solid steel. He told the hearing: "I wish I had more time to inspect steel structure and save more pieces before the steel was recycled. However, given the fact that other teams such as NIST, SEAONY and FEMA-BPAT have also done inspection and have collected the perishable data, it seems to me that collectively we may have been able to collect sufficient data." So, others were also sifting through the wreckage, and any one, or all, of them may have had the task of covering the evidence.

The page has a simulation diagram of a plane going though the tower that is worse than laughable; it's downright deplorable. There is no reason as yet, until we discover the details of the columns at the crash zones, that the columns should not have sliced through the wings rather than vice-versa.

Late on the page: "Has published more than 150 papers, reports and other publications on the behavior and design of steel structures subjected to seismic, gravity and blast loads." Well, then, where's the paper on the plane going through the building??? There's no link to it at this page. The last line says: "Astaneh-Asl's UC Berkeley web-page is totally devoid of information concerning the WTC collapses (almost all links go nowhere) and has been so for years. It seems Astaneh-Asl likes it that way." This Astaneh fellow looks like a fake.

Below is the full page where Astaneh shows his simulation. He says that, due to not having the actual plans of the towers, he created his own building as suits him, and then shows the wings plowing through only five columns across. The plane is barely busted up when fully inside. This is worse than laughable. He does not say that his building diagram represents only the core columns, apparently intending to have the viewers think it to be the outer walls. He is either a demented man with the brain of a child, a demented comedian, or a demented insider. It's clear from this page that the insiders' original storyline was to claim internal temperatures of 1500 C, thus portraying the melting of steel columns. That idea didn't get very far because Astaneh did anything but come across as a structural engineer. This act was a bright flag to attract true engineers to the fakeness that 9-11 was,.

You would think that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth would have an abundance of articles detailing the columns and their beams to show the level of forces they can take, their dimensions where possible, their breaking moments, and all other things natural to the architect. Instead, their Evidence page features little of that, judging from a look at the titles. I see nothing on treating the plane entry. Is this not amazing? Clearly, they have decided not to touch this part of the disaster, or to shut anyone out who has papers on a no-planes theory. This is very wrong. They've placed themselves on a track to failure due to shallowness.

The Missing Jolt

I've just found a technical article from their Evidence page that I'll discuss in order to elaborate on one point. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti are the co-authors. First, it quotes NIST and then makes a super comment:

Three essential elements of NIST's hypothesis of total collapse are made explicit in the Final Report and the companion volumes of the study:

1. Because of damage to stories 93 to 98, and especially because of column buckling due to fire, the top 12 stories of the North Tower (99-110) plus the roof were, in effect, separated from the rest of the Tower and began to behave as a unit.
2. This "rigid block" of 12 stories plus the roof began to move. First it tilted, and then it abruptly fell onto the stories beneath it.
3. The fall of the rigid block caused such damage to the lower structure that "global collapse began."

The rigidity of the upper block of stories is crucial to this explanation. If the upper block were to break, disintegrate or flow on impact it would certainly not threaten the 92 intact floors beneath it.

I don't yet know what's on his mind as he makes the statement above, but I would like to share what is the most-likely scenario. I tried to explain this in an earlier update, but then deleted it because I had not taken the time enough to think it through; I wanted to get back to it at a later time. And here we are. In order to understand this, we break the floors up into Upper Floor A, Upper Floor B, etc., as well as Lower Floor A, Lower Floor B, etc. The Upper Floors pertain to the falling unit, and the Lower Floors to the stable building upon which the upper unit falls. Upper Floor A is the ceiling where the columns supposedly bent and snapped apart, and Lower Floor A is the floor immediately below the ceiling, the first floor to receive contact from the falling unit.

By "Upper Floor" and "Lower Floor", the horizontal beams, as they are connected to vertical columns, are the focus. For this picture, the concrete floors can be ignored. We simply imagine the beams of one floor crashing against the beams of another, with the columns of the upper block offset from the columns of the lower block by a short distance of a foot or so. The authors of The Missing Jolt wish to highlight that Upper Floor A and Lower Floor A are identical in strength. It doesn't matter which floor happens to be moving; at contact, the two are equal in regards to how much damage they will inflict on one another. There is no reason to assume that Upper Floor A will smash apart the horizontal beams on Lower Floor A rather than vice versa, and there is certainly no logic in claiming that the beams on Upper Floor A are indestructible, capable of ramming through all lower floors upon which they fall without suffering their own destruction soon enough.

By "destruction," the breaking of their welds / bolts is meant. Once this takes place in Upper Floor A, the beams are no longer part of the "pile driver," as the NIST side calls it, or, if you wish, the battering ram. This ramming has to do with the accumulation of mass/weight as ONE UNIT, but if the lowest beams break away from that unit, the beams no longer contribute to the battering-ram force. The weight of the beams can yet contribute to downward force, but are now free to act separately, even at a separate time, and to deflect away rather than contribute the most-solid blow possible against the lower block.

More importantly for this discussion, the beams of Upper Floor A, no longer being connected to the whole upper block, temporarily suspend / remove the kinetic energy of the upper block from acting upon the lower block. Can you see the problem that this amounts to for the criminal side?

How long do we expect it before Upper Floor A breaks apart?? Chances are 50-50 for Upper Floor A to break apart, as opposed to Lower Floor A, upon the first collision. For argument's sake favoring the criminal side, we'll imagine Lower Floor A broken on first contact, with Upper Floor A severely weakened simultaneously. The chances thereafter are high for Upper Floor A to break apart when it crashes on the next set of beams, at Lower Floor B. In fact, it would be wrong to expect anything else. Therefore, Upper Floor A has been destroyed by the time that it falls to Lower Floor B.

What happens? Lower Floor B survives intact, and the next crash doesn't occur until Upper Floor B reaches it. That takes time. Time is the focus here. Let's name a point in time, B-B, the time when Upper B reaches Lower B. NIST would have us believe that, at B-B, Upper Floor A is indestructibly contacting Lower Floor C. Instead, Lower Floor B is still intact at this time, i.e. the collapse has yet to reach Lower C. We have two different scenarios, with NIST having the crash zone one floor further down than the expected reality. This picture is one thing implied by the authors when they write of FLOW: "The rigidity of the upper block of stories is crucial to this explanation. If the upper block were to break, disintegrate or flow on impact it would certainly not threaten the 92 intact floors beneath it."

If one continues to view the Upper Floors as breaking apart, on average, every two collisions, it will double the total collapse time the ground level versus the time taken to cause the collapse as NIST wishes for us to view it. But it gets worse, for global/total collapse is no longer expected if the upper block suffers complete destruction to its battering-ram floor at every two collisions on average.

For argument's sake favoring the NIST side, we can assume that Upper Floor B survives the crash at Lower Floor B, destroying Lower Floor B, but does not survive the crash at Lower Floor C, at which time Lower Floor C needs to wait for Upper Floor C to arrive. By the time that it does arrive, Upper Floor A, if it had been indestructible from the start, would have been way down at Lower Floor E. And so on and so on, the collapse of the lower building is taking twice the time because the upper floors are breaking as often as the lower floors. Soon enough, long before the collapse gets to the ground, the upper battering ram will no longer be heavy enough to be such. The collapse is then expected to cease.

Someone might say that no, the collapse will yet go on, apart from the falling of an upper unit, due to the total weight of the rubble all concentrated on one floor. On the other hand, the columns were built, at any given floor, to handle the total overhead weight. It was the momentum of the falling block that could, feasibly but not necessarily, cause the collapse to begin in the first place. The world has never seen the engineering science to show what may have happened in any scenario, because NIST failed to show it, fearing that the world would get the dimensions of the steel. The man on the street cannot argue in favor of NIST's view without first seeing the science, and, of course, the man on the street needs to take more seriously NIST's refusal to release the dimensions. We are talking high potential for extreme criminality here, of criminals who even entered congress brazenly with lies.

With the eradication of momentum after the upper block has been dismantled by the falling forces, any continued collapse must be defined in another way. The weakest point then would be the accumulated upon the trusses between the inner core and the outer columns, but even if trusses gave way floor after floor to ground level, the core was a separate matter, and hefty, standing a chance to remain standing. I would like to see architects reveal which floor had the ability, in its core, to handle all the overhead weight if it were bearing directly upon its core beams. These beams did not have large dimensions merely for holding up one concrete floor and its live loads, but for keeping the core's integral strength. The metal of the beams may have been progressively thicker / larger lower down.

To this it needs to be added that massive dust began issuing very near the start of the collapse, wherefore, for all intents and purposes here, the original accumulated weight of concrete floors is not to be used in the determination of total kinetic energy within the battering ram. With each destruction of the battering-ram floor, its concrete, and that of the concrete collided with, went mainly up in smoke, so to speak. Regardless of what process caused the dust, the weight of concrete floors went almost wholly to the air, for the debris field within the foundational footprints of the towers did not show deep heaps of concrete dust or concrete rubble.

Due to larger steel dimensions lower down, one could suggest, for example, that by the time Upper Floor E fell and collided with Lower Floor E, the two sides might no longer have been equal. Sooner or later, the lower side would have the advantage. No small point. It means that the lower block may have been able to withstand two collisions before being destroyed, and that two out of three collisions destroyed the battering-ram floor, bringing the upper block to its complete dismantling even sooner.

If architects could know how strong the beams had been, they could easily predict, with sound math, how much falling force they could handle. They could also show a floor-by-floor explanation of events with a timeline. A debate between truther engineers and goon-side engineers on such an explanation would be very welcome. Truthers can force the goon side either to give a rebuttal to their explanations, or to appear lame and in criminal bondage by not responding. The next battles must come from engineers on the truther side, for the criminal side is happy to let the matter rest.

Mass-murder by your own government, shame. Shame on the architects for allowing this cover-up to take place. Shame on the nation's legal system, shame all around. The alternative to taking the chance with our safety is to allow the situation to fester. There is no use fearing the invasion of the Soviets, because something worse than the Russians already rules over you, architects of the nation. If you would risk your life fighting an invasion of the Soviets, what is wrong that you won't risk your life fighting the rulers who did 9-11 to your nation? You don't need to fire a bullet. You need only join A & E for 9/11 Truth, and allow it to disseminate your papers. You need only tell the truth that the mathematical formulas explain.

Mr. MacQueen and/or Mr. Szamboti go on to explain that the Lower Floors were able to handle the weight of the Upper Floors in a non-falling situation, a fact that needs no argumentation. The key question is: would the upper floors falling over a span of 12 or 24 feet cause the destruction of Lower Floor A, and so begin the collapse process that we all witnessed? Architects are able to handle such questions with the sort of precision needed to build safe bridges, etc., but in order to do so, they need to know the yield strengths and other specifics of the beams, not just the columns. It is time for someone to leak the dimensions of the beams. You may have sworn not to reveal the dimensions, but keeping that oath makes you an accomplice to mass murder. You are not required to keep an oath, signed or otherwise, if criminality is the basis for the oath. Besides, you can leak the dimensions anonymously by using a whistleblower website.

The two authors say: "the lower block had 283 cold steel columns, with less than 30% of their total load capacity being utilized for gravity loads, because of the factors of safety designed into the structure and the need to withstand high winds -- and gravity loads were essentially the only loads the columns would have been subject to on a day such as 9/11 with little wind...If there were to be a threat [to the lower block], it had to come from the momentum of the upper block...Of course, if there was a powerful jolt to the lower structure there must also have been a powerful jolt to the upper falling structure, in accord with Newton's Third Law."

That law basically says that a moving object will suffer the same impact forces when it strikes a still object as does the still object. NIST would have us believe that a swung baseball bat can continue to destroy 100 baseball bats when striking them without suffering damage to itself. It's an excellent point, and architects are able to write these things in detail, yet that's surprisingly missing from the pages of A & E for 9/11 Truth. Curiously, Mr. MacQueen and company mentions the strengths of the columns, and yet says nothing on the beams.

MacQueen and company: "What NIST essentially says, agreeing with Bazant, is that the lighter and weaker part initially fell with a powerful jolt onto the heavier and stronger part, which could not withstand its momentum, and that this caused a progressive collapse to initiate smashing the lower block to bits all the way to the ground." It's a good point, except perhaps that the falling block does not land on all columns, but does tend to land on all beams. It matters whether the beams, too, were progressively thicker toward the ground. The last update showed how the columns were progressively thicker in the lower parts, but is that true of the beams too? The answer should be ventured by an architect. Where is such an answer? Why are the beams ignored by MacQueen and company? Were they not thinking correctly? If so, then start.

The momentum / kinetic energy of the falling block can be calculated to a reasonable accuracy. The only question: how much kinetic energy could the core beams on Lower Floor A absorb, and, if they cannot absorb the total falling energy, what is the predicted result of that first collision? Will beam-on-beam contact slice through beams? Will beam-on-beam contact compromise weld seams? Will beam-on-beam contact merely bend beams (= slow absorption) until the fall comes to a halt? If there was any clear hope of global collapse beginning at the first collision, NIST's engineers would have known and shown it, and NIST's reports would consequently have mentioned it. Absence of this matter in NIST's report means that truther architects have the upper hand. So, why not play your hand? You have the winning hand, but shame on you if you don't play it.

It has not yet been established that the first floor on the lower block would be compromised, and it is to this matter that MacQueen and Szamboti speak, though they do not use column strengths to do so. They prove that the upper block did NOT destroy the top floor of the lower block because they prove that the upper block did not as much as make contact with the upper floor of the lower block. Hum? That's right. They have thus played a winning hand, and yet there are other winning hands yet to be played. The game is far from over.

Has anyone tried to get the steel-dimension facts by court order? If the courts refuse, it speaks volumes for need of a major revolution. When the MAJORITY of the people rebel by force against a government, it's no longer seditious or treasonous. Instead, as Obama has argued with Libya, Egypt and Syria, the government needs to step aside without taking one shot with a gun against the protesters.

If the American government were to shoot at its own citizens during such a mass-movement rebellion, it would become, according to Obama's own words, and the words of many Western leaders, an illegitimate dictatorship. The will of the people is supposed to rule, you see, and if the courts and media refuse to hear the people for the sake of protecting the government, that's a dictatorship. The problem is, the majority still take the government side on the 9-11 issue. Should truthers become a critical threat, the government will begin to deal with them cruelly before it gets so out of hand that the majority take their side. How is that any different from the Chinese method of handling such a thing?

That's where the truthers are hoping to take this, to the point wherein they are the majority, thus effecting a revolt upon the goons. I should like to see God as their helper even though they don't acknowledge Him. I should like to see the goons removed from power, but what sort of spiritual pollution will come in to fill the void? Anything should be better than those who kill their own people in cold blood, for these must tend toward spiritual pollution anyway. Safe to say, America and Europe have become spiritually polluted, over one generation, due to the very sorts that conducted 9-11. We need to ask Jesus for protection from them. We have no other choice even if we want one. Having a living body is not necessarily evidence that we are safe and sound. People who continue forward in these days with complimentary lives in respect to physical things are not necessarily safe from the judgment of God. If one tolerates the demons who conducted 9-11, one may suffer their end. We cannot slide God out of this picture to treat it on a wholly unspiritual level. You should not attack demons without the protection of God though Jesus.

MacQueen sounds confident: "As we will show, for the purposes of the present refutation it does not matter whether [the upper 12-storey block] fell one story, six stories, or somewhere in between." If I'm not mistaken, he means that the momentum of fall, as it pertains to a collision, is irrelevant because no collision took place. NIST brings a collision to our minds that did not ever take place.

MacQueen and company have a section sub-titled, "The Necessary Jolt." The first thing done is to check for deceleration of the falling upper side. They explain well enough why there should be deceleration as a fact of physics: even a hammer striking a nail decelerates. They show some collapse details after having studied all numerous frames of it. They wish to determine and examine the velocity of fall. If you're a technical sort of person, I suggest you go there to read it. Or, just follow along here for the meaningful parts:

6. Our measurement [of the collapse] stretches from 30.93 seconds in to the clip to 34.1 seconds into the clip, giving us a total interval of 3.17 seconds.

7. We find that during this interval the white device [or object] on the roof has fallen a distance represented by 130 pixels.

8. ...We discover that in our frame-by-frame version of the Sauret video 1 pixel = 0.88 feet...We now know that the point on the roof has fallen approximately 114.4 feet. The figure is not precise...but the figures are close enough for our purpose because we are looking for changes in acceleration over time, not exact velocity values.

9. We know that d = g t2 [= t squared] where d stands for distance, g stands for acceleration due to gravity, which is 32.174 ft./s2 at sea level, and t stands for time. Using this formula [.5 x 32.174 x 3.17 x 3.17], we discover that a freely falling object would travel 161.6 feet in the time it took the roof to drop 114.4 feet.

[After showing several graphs] The velocity of the roof increases in a relatively LINEAR [caps mine] way and is 68.65 ft./s [46.8 mph] after 3.00 seconds, which is about 71% of the free fall velocity of 96.52 ft./s for this fall time. At the actual measured distances and calculated velocities, the initial fall through one story would have taken place in approximately 1.0 second.

The linear term has to do with smoothness. The acceleration was smooth, not in fits and starts. The linearity of the fall is the central point, the crux of the finding. It proves that the upper block did not strike the lower block within the first three seconds of fall, even though a fall of one storey in distance took place after 1 second, and a fall of four stories took place after less than two seconds. There is no wiggle room for NIST. It's game over once the people understand this. The man on the street, and even the teenager on dope, can understand this.

"If the upper block...were rigid, as Bazant and NIST claim, the powerful jolt...would show itself as an abrupt negative deviation in the otherwise positively sloped and virtually linear velocity graph." "Negative deviation" on the chart translates in the real world to a sudden slow-down. I don't have any problem with that claim, in the same way that a dropping coconut slows down when striking the demon-filled skull of a goon. Some day, it will be raining burning coals upon their heads, on the Day that God takes pleasure in showing them no pity.

Unlike a coconut, the upper part of the building did not slow down when it should have upon its first collision with the upper floor of the lower block. Even the 10-year old can understand this. The director of NIST needs jail time, and Hell's holding tank will be his jail until he's burned to a crisp without pity in the Second Death. Make no mistake about it, these demons have not gotten away with their crimes. Each man and woman will pay with torment by MORE than the measure of torment they unleashed on others. Suffering the same amount of torment and horror as their victims is not sufficient. It is predictable that the levels of torment will be according to the damage done, the motives and reasoning behind it, and the wicked attitudes with which the sins were committed.

Momentum is being calculated by the authors in units of gravity force, and so the number of gravity units of force needed, in the upper battering ram, to cause the first struck floor to break down and allow the battering ram through, was calculated by the goon side. We should like to see NIST's math on this matter. The goon side will, of course, exaggerate, and it's MacQueen's job to catch them in their bad science, but he laments that Bazant and NIST don't give much of their bad science up for scrutiny.

"G" = gravity is being used below to express "amplification" of force, that being the striking force by the motion of the upper block. Bazant claimed that, after about 12 feet of fall, the upper block would have multiplied its dead-weight force by 31 times. While I find that figure striking me as too high, I simply don't know. I'll need to tentatively trust that objects falling through 12 feet amass 31 times their dead-weight force:

Bazant claims that a minimum force amplification of 31g, or 31 times the static weight of the upper stories, could have occurred in a collision between the upper and lower blocks of the Twin Towers after a fall of one story. With the 98th story columns completely collapsing [this verifies that they located the collapse high up in the crash zone, where heat is expected to concentrate], a distance between floor slabs of approximately 11.44 feet, and the actual measured velocity of 22.81 ft./s of the upper block at this point, the first collision would have occurred approximately one second into the fall. Regardless of the actual amplification, any impulse at the impact zone between the 98th and 99th story floor slabs capable of causing collapse continuation would have had to cause the columns on at least the first stories on either side of the impact to deform elastically, and plastically, and then to buckle. The deformations and buckling of the columns of the impacting stories, on both the lower and upper blocks, would cause a kinetic energy drain [i.e. energy absorbed into the struck steel = energy loss/drain from the falling block], which would reduce the velocity of the rigidly attached falling mass above them. Using energy methods we have calculated what effect these energy drains would have on the velocity of the upper block...

The authors are introducing energy absorption at the collision point, and claiming that they have studied it up close. While the man on the street doesn't know how to figure this, he understands that a collision has the effect of slowing down the moving object. Duh. And while the authors have already won this debate, because there was shown to be no slow-down, they are now taking to task what the situation should have been if the collapse had gone the way that the NISTs of the world wish for us to believe.

The authors lose me on why the 17.38 figure is used for velocity reduction to conclude: "Since the roof was part of the rigid upper block it would have displayed this momentary abrupt change in its velocity, from 22.81 ft./s to 5.43 ft./s, if the collapse were a natural occurrence." It's an abrupt loss of velocity, as could be expected, though I'm not sure whether the remaining 5.43 feet per second (3.7 miles per hour) indicates that the collapse will continue at that speed. No matter, for the jolts did not take place.

The arguments for the 17.38 and 5.43 figures are in Appendix D (shown), but I would need to take a mini-course in engineering to be able to explain it to you. They say: "...reflecting a velocity reduction of 15.63 ft./s due to the three calculated energy drains of axial elastic deformation, axial plastic deformation, and plastic hinge buckling of the columns on the 97th and 99th stories." In short, they have proposed a scheme by which to figure total energy absorption, and the onus now rests with the goon side to show some rebuttal.

I have a problem with their 17.38 figure. If they do not know the dimensions and yield strengths of the steel beams, how can they calculate the three forms of deformation above? Each form of deformation consists of its own level of kinetic energy absorbed. If the authors are speaking only to the deformation of columns, which assumes that the columns received the transfer of all kinetic energy through the beams, that would be fine and dandy only if the welds did not break where columns are welded to beams, and if beams did not split into two. In either case, the collapse could have continued regardless of the column strengths.

Appendix D exposes that the authors knew the yield strengths and other details of both the core and outer columns at the stories where the plane supposedly crashed. They are able to calculate, therefore, the amount of falling energy that the columns could absorb. They fails to mention the beams at all. Assuming that the upper block would collide with beams much more often than with the tops of the columns, and assuming probably rightly that the beams are smaller and much thinner than the columns, how does that change the scenario? Drastically.

I think that architects need to deal with this issue wherein the upper-block beams falls on other beams directly next to where they are welded to columns. In some cases, beam could strike beam centrally. The columns should not be compromised much at all (i.e. they would not break) because the welds / beams are expected to give way first. I stand to be corrected on that, but that's how I see it.

The upper block falling through the beams of multiple floors would leave columns standing in many cases, and the tops of these columns would strike and explosively pierce concrete floors as the upper block passed by, floor after floor. Think of how high the columns would remain standing, thus breaking concrete a few to several storeys above the battering-ram floor. With most/much of the upper concrete no longer connected to the falling UNIT, the battering-ram force would be lessened. That is, if the freed concrete does not land on the top floor of the lower block at the same instant that the battering-ram beams strike, the battering-ram force is lessened. One can drop stones amounting to millions of tons more than the weight of the upper block, but if the stones are dropped one per second (i.e. not at the same time), their accumulated kinetic energies will not cause collapse. The immensity of the jolt at any one instant in time is all-important.

We are veering away from the main point. Mr. MacQueen's discussion does not centrally involve the destructive mechanics of the collapse. Rather, its about the abrupt change of fall, enough to require a very visual slow-down when plotted on a chart. The video of the collapse did not show any such thing. While his blue dots show the velocity figures over regular points in time, the straight blue line through the blue dots is added to show linearity. The blue dots are virtually upon the blue line. We expect a jolt in the blue line, he says. Where is it, Mr. Bazant? What sort of cartoon are you offering the world?

It is also important to note here that Dr. Bazant was off by a factor of ten in his calculation of the stiffness of the columns, with his 71 GN/m estimate. The actual stiffness, calculated here using the actual column cross sections, is approximately 7.1 GN/m. (see Appendices B and C). This error caused Dr. Bazant to significantly overestimate the potential amplifying effect of the impulse or jolt, which he claims occurred after a one story fall of the upper block.

MacQueen is too kind using "Dr." Bazant belongs on Warner Brothers Cartoons. Ten times off the mark creates a cartoon, does it not? What's amazing is that 7.1 is exactly ten times into 71. Did the goons use 71 so that they could later claim they erred honestly by misplacing the decimal? What's up, doc? The stiffness refers, not to individual columns, but to the whole grid of columns from ground to roof. The 7.1 figure depends on whether the team was correct in assessing the thickness of steel at the 55th floor, as is assessed it in Appendix C.

As the MacQueen team goes on, they do imply the beams as well as the welds:

In reality, the upper block could not have tolerated the potential 31g impulse theorized by Dr. Bazant. To get this overload he claims was possible, all of the mass of the upper block would have had to participate, and if it did so it would have come apart completely.

"Come apart completely" suggests beams ripping away from columns, does it not? I don't see what else it could mean. The MacQueen team is claiming a way to calculate that a force of 31g would rip beams from columns. I think what's meant by "all of the mass" is all of it from first to last of the collision. They're saying that it's impossible for the full dead-weight force of the upper block, while moving at a speed corresponding to 12 feet of fall, to unload it's FULL force on the lower section because, at some point midway through the collision, the upper block would suffer dislocation failure to the point of alleviating the downward force. That is, once broken apart, the upper section ceases to act as a one-unit jolt.

The apparent revelation here (that 31g force of the upper-block mass would rip beams off columns) applies also to beams in the lower block. The NIST side gladly emphasizes that part, but would have us blind to the same effect in the upper block. Thank you, Mr. MacQueen, for pointing this out. Let us not allow their great escape.

The beautiful thing about this is that the goon opposition might not want to include the beams in their assessment. The weaker the beams, the less the goons would want to touch them in their reports, for a battering ram with a weak hammer head ceases to be much of a battering ram. A pile driver uses a solid piece of steel as the hammer, but if the hammer were a network of chicken wire, it ceases to be a pile driver. Perhaps the goon side emphasized the columns wrongly but deliberately, and the MacQueens of the world naively followed suit.

It is imperative that the courts in the United States allow the architects of the nation to have access to the dimensions of the steel beams between core columns, and to force the Republican Congress to give those figures up as a matter of freedom of information, if nothing more, and as a matter of national urgency in consideration of the cover-up that is obviously in play at the Congressional level. Those figures belong to the people as much as to the government. If a people are suspicious of the government report, they have every right to be, and every right to check those figures, and to take the government people to court for deliberate violations of the science, if they so choose. The courts are there to provide these services to the people; otherwise, it's a dictatorship from the courts down.

The only way to refute the linearity of chart is to suggest that the roof line fell at a smooth acceleration while the bottom, battering-ram part of the upper block experienced a non-smooth fall. In all honesty, that seems impossible to me, for the upper block was one unit, all connected by steel columns top to bottom, making it impossible for the upper part to move at a velocity at odds with the velocity of the lowest part. Whatever was happening to the lowest part had to be reflected at the top part. If the beams of the battering ram (= lowest part) were ripped off their welds at the first collision, it amounts to the same situation (i.e. same rate of deceleration) as would be the case if the battering ram destroyed Lower Floor A. No matter what the outcome either to Upper Floor A or Lower Floor A, the kinetic energy needs to be used up to the point of total breakage of one or the other, sufficient to allow the battering ram through. The NIST side needs to show that there would be no visible slow-down of the roof line when the beams of either floor are total broken through. Waiting. Or go down in infamy.

We need to get off of the NIST story, and start viewing the collapse in the way that the roof line dictates. The roof line fell with smooth acceleration because many lower columns had been destroyed by nano-thermite and explosives.

The MacQueen's team did not merely track the fall of the upper block for one storey, but for about nine, overwhich there were supposed to be as many as eight collision events, each bringing the velocity down from what it was at striking velocity. The repeated drops in velocity should have exposed themselves as a zig-zag line upon the chart...:


We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building [he's ignoring thermite, etc.], which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny

Well said. It means that the upper part of the lower block was falling even while the upper block was falling. It in-turn requires that floors were kicked out completely, further down from the crash area. Moreover, sufficient floors were kicked out until the engineers of the goons could be sure that the amount of mass combined with its accelerating velocity could take care of the rest of the building, all the way down to the ground. It was not necessary to use thermites and explosives all the way down if at some point the momentum and loads together could take care of it. After just three seconds, at nearly 114 feet of downward motion, the total forces included the upper block moving at 68.65 ft/s (46.8 mph), as well as whatever parts of the lower block were falling simultaneously.

NIST needs to answer why the building, during the first second, was not falling at the speed of freefall. If all the columns on an upper floor of the crash zone were completely compromised at a certain point, the upper block is predicted to fall as fast as gravity would allow, which is about 16 feet in 1.0 second. Yet MacQueen found it falling just 11.44 feet after 1.0 second. Moreover, the rate of fall remained exactly the same until 2.0 seconds, at which time freefall speed expects a distance reached of 64 feet, and yet the building fell only 45.76 feet by the second second.

Dividing 45.76 by 64 gets the same answer (.715) as dividing 11.44 by 16...meaning that the rate of fall was identical to the 2.0-second point. Therefore, if NIST wishes to argue that the columns on one or two floors had completely given way, what could have restricted the fall to keep it from achieving freefall speed?

It should be said that while the fall over one second was nearly one storey, the fall by 2.0 seconds was over an additional four storeys. How could the building fall, during the first second, at a rate equal to the second second when in the latter second the falling block was supposedly colliding with three or more stationary floors?

It's difficult enough to imagine two floors giving way, by heat of fire, at exactly the same second so that NIST didn't venture to claim that three floors gave way simultaneously. It means that, during the first two seconds, the collapse needed to go through at least three stable floors.

At 3.0 seconds, the upper block had fallen 102.96 feet, though freefall speed would have gotten it to 144.78 feet. Dividing those two numbers gets .711, virtually the .715 above, meaning that the rate of fall as far as 102 feet -- more than eight storeys -- was virtually identical as per the first two seconds. How does NIST or any NIST supporter explain that? Clearly, NIST's outlook on the collapse specifics does not work.

All right, John, how do you explain it? Two possible ways: 1) beams and concrete products were scraping along columns on the way down. It suggests that the building was not falling perfectly free in the first three seconds; 2) the angle of the camera used for the video that the MacQueen team used reduced a true foot to almost .75 of a foot so that his estimation of distances (per pixel) were inaccurate. I don't find that either of these options are particularly good ones, but I can't think of a third.


On this page, you will find evidence enough that NASA did not put men on the moon.
Starting at this paragraph, there is a single piece of evidence
-- the almost-invisible dot that no one on the outside was supposed to find --
that is enough in itself to prove the hoax.
End-times false signs and wonders may have to do with staged productions like the lunar landing.

The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents

web site analytic