Sneak Peak: Revised Demolition Theory Hypothesis

by Scott Creighton (re-posted from Sept 16, 2009)

I know you guys think I have been slacking, but there are things in the works over here.  Really.  I mean it.  You don’t believe me?  I know you don’t… so here’s a sneak peak at my Revised WTC Demolition Theory Hypothesis.  More careful study of the NCSTAR1 report (a troll suggested I do it) has turned up some interesting facts like:

1. the composition of the trusses themselves (no A-36 structural steel, but rather a combination of ASTM A-242 and an ASTM A-572 equivalent)

2. the number of the trusses (nearly doubled the 23,000 of my first estimate)

3. the existence of an ELECTRICAL WIRING DUCT that ran next to most of the trusses and embedded in the concrete once that was poured (very important for the DET CORD theory)

4. pictures of a few scraps of the trusses recovered from Ground Zero

Anyway, I am still working on it.   So here are a few technical drawings that I have just completed showing in detail, what I think caused the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Det Cord runs through electrical ducts pre-fabricated in floor sections. No drilling or cutting required.

Det Cord runs through electrical ducts pre-fabricated in floor sections. No drilling or cutting required.

(see more details after the break)



Some revisions based on the NCSTAR diagram located on page 6. Notice the electrical ducts and the doubled trusses.

Standard floor sections as shipped and installed in WTC 1 and 2

Standard floor sections as shipped and installed in WTC 1 and 2

Lightweight concrete poured over floor sections after installation would cover electrical ducts.

Lightweight concrete poured over floor sections after installation would cover electrical ducts.

The composition of the trusses was not simply carbon and iron as has been suggested by many others.  That would be the main composition of A-36 structural steel. But as NIST points out, in the fabrication process of the trusses, the company that made them substituted a higher grade steel, a HSLA steel, for the parts of the trusses that were to be comprised of A-36 structural steel.  They also used ASTM A-242 steel in the trusses.  This could explain the reports of silicone, sulfur, and various other metals found in the “iron rich spheres”.

Chemical composition of ASTM A-242 HSLA steel from NCSTAR

Taken from the NCSTAR1 report. ASTM A-242 steel in the trusses possess many of the elements found in the "iron rich spheres" including iron, carbon, silicone, sulfer...

Taken from the NCSTAR1 report. ASTM A-242 steel in the trusses possess many of the elements found in the "iron rich spheres" including iron, carbon, silicone, sulfur...

Chemical composition of ASTM A-572 HSLA steel

Chemical Composition A572 Grade 50 steel

The incredibly high temperatures required to create the spheres themselves as well as all the molten steel found under the rubble of Ground Zero can easily be explained by the use of PETN.  PETN is commonly used in the demolition industry and it is more than capable of creating temperatures in excess of 7,050 degs. Fahrenheit.  PETN is one of the most powerful high explosives used in the demolition industry.  The application of the PETN filled DET CORD would be as simple as reaching up into the ceiling tiles on each floor, and running the DET CORD like an electrician pulls cable, in the pre-existing ELECTRICAL DUCTS.  There would be no need for drilling or for finding a way to fasten the DET CORD to the underside of the metal floor pans.  The installation would fast, simple, and could be disguised as a “cable upgrade” for the security system.

(The formula for kelvin to Fahrenheit is ((Kelvin – 273) * 1.8 ) + 32; note: 1.8 = 9/5.)

From the RJ Lee report:

In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic, bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens, and paint during the WTC Event.

Combustion-related products are significant WTC Dust Markers, particularly if seen in combination.

… The differences within the WTC Dust and typical background dusts include the fineness and evidence of heat

The amount of energy introduced during the generation of the WTC Dust and the ensuing conflagration caused various components to vaporizeRJ Lee

Simple installation process hypothesis.

Simple installation process hypothesis.

David Ray Griffin, one of the most respected people involved in the grass-roots investigation of the events of Sept. 11th, had this to say in his recent article, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7,  about the evidence of extremely high temperatures in the WTC 7 collapse…

The RJ Lee study also found that temperatures had been reached “at which lead would have undergone vaporization”– meaning 1,749°C (3,180°F).

Another study was carried out by the US Geological Survey, the purpose of which was to aid the “identification of WTC dust components.” Besides also finding iron particles, the scientists involved in this study found that molybdenum had been melted. This finding was especially significant, because this metal does not melt until it reaches 2,623°C (4,753°F). Griffin

More to follow later… just a sneak peak.

Oh, wait… as promised…

Even the NIST could NOT explain WHY there were NO LONG PIECES OF THE TRUSSES or even INTACT PIECES OF TRUSSES… the NIST report cannot explain this fact.  Here are the only pictures of the trusses that I have been able to find.  The 22 scraps found by FEMA…

NCSTAR trusses couldn't explain why they were so damaged

NCSTAR trusses couldn't explain why they were so damaged

Notice these pieces aren’t “crushed flat” like one would expect…

Bent and completely blown apart - the Trusses of WTC Towers

Bent and completely blown apart - the Trusses of WTC Towers

109 Responses

  1. wow…. the new electrical ducts…. they been there all along?

  2. I’m sorry, I clicked before I was finished.

    Maybe I missed something, but wouldn’t these ducts be laying all over the place also? Were they made of steel?
    And what a clue…. you could hide anything in them…
    could they hide timers?

  3. What if they prefered to use nano-thermite because it it makes less NOISE than the convensional explosives.?

    What if they use it because it CUTS rather than Blows things up.?

    Remember that They wanted the whole SHOW to look and sound like a Collapse rather than a Demolition.

    The FACT is that NANOTHERMITE was found!


    How do you explain the molten metal falling from where the plain hit the building?

    • Steven Jones has stated recently that he doesn’t know if the stuff they found was used as anything more than an “electric match” to ignite conventional demolitions.

      The paper itself suggests the same thing.

      In fact, without further testing, the paper says that they can’t tell if the stuff was a deflagerant or an “explosive” and they certainly don’t claim, in any substantive way, that what they found is definitely capable of being used as a HIGH EXPLOSIVE…

      First of all, thermite would only “cut” something lying under it. And that is, if there was a lot of it there. What happened to those floors happened at a rate of about 10 floors per second. One tenth of a second, the entire floor system was gone.

      I don’t give a crap HOW MUCH thermite Jones says they dumped on that, thermite burns TOO SLOWLY for that to be the result.

      “Nanothermite” is not what they even SAID they found… they SAID they found a “active THERMETIC material that utilized NANOTECHNOLOGY”… but they didn’t come right out and definitely claim they found “nanothermite” in the paper. Perhaps you should read it again.

      Besides, even if what supporters of the “loaded gun” hypothesis claim is true is, please tell me the specific burn rate, demolition efficiency rating, explosive temperature, shock wave speed, is for your “nanothermite” please? I would like to know so people can form an educated opinion as to whether or not the “super secret”, untestable “nanothermite” could actually accomplish the task of pulverizing the floor system and “vaporizing” the truss system at the same time.

      I don’t know what that stuff pouring out the side is. No one has found it and tested it. Some people SPECULATE as to what it is, but I don’t know for SURE because there have been no tests performed on it. Do YOU know for sure what it is just by watching a video on YouTube?

      • willyloman,

        I agree with you and am also trying to figure out what happened to the trusses; of course, you’re way ahead of me.

        Stranger than fiction: It is 12+ years since 9/11 now and this floor problem has been almost entirely ignored not just by the “regular” Americans but by the 9/11 truth movement.

        I worked in construction many years and you are completely right about those trusses not crushing or turning themselves into particles without explosive. People who think so have never tried to destroy a steel truss, I guess!

        Another thing that has bothered me for a long time is all the missing 4-bolt groups, which held the perimeter wall sections together.

        In almost all photos of the ground zero pile that show the ends of perimeter columns those four bolts are missing. A few pictures show them. It’s been a while since I looked at the many photos of the rubble pile.

        I have a theory that the bolts were removed, or many of them,but that nothing would happen, they would stand and not even movie, until the floors were blown, and then the perimeter walls would fall apart like a pile of pick up sticks. Sort of the way they actually did.

        Thanks for your work on the floors and trusses.

        It must be very frustrating to do all that effort and have it be so ignored. But it’s part of the long process of getting 9/11 right, and will be part of the archive of how getting 9/11 right was finally accomplished, one of these days, although I am starting to wonder if I will see it happen in my lifetime.

  4. “because it makes less noise”
    wow… so many people at the site of theTowers remarked about hearing terrific explosion sounds… how could anyone miss that? Even the sesimic readings noted that the explosive vibrations jolted their equipment that day.
    o, jlennon08…. it was not a quiet explosive used on 9/11… it was loud and extrememly hot…… and it pulvirized cement and floors and trusses. The electrical ducts that Willy found were probably used just as he supposes.

  5. 9/11 for Reality Deniers

    Enjoy Mr Everyman!

  6. Swindler, question:
    If this report you have posted (Steven Jones report) is so true, how come JOnes has not been threatened? How come he is making so much money off his supposed truth? Why is it a money maker and not an arrest maker?
    And how in the world would ‘whoever’ paint or spray the entire underside of ‘whatever’ with this nano stuff? And at the same time control the mist created by the spraying? Wouldn’t that smell have alarmed workers or even made them sick? or heaven forbid that one of them flicked their bic for a sneak cigarrette or even a few sparks from an electrical connection at the wrong time. If they used that so called gel pack.. where would they paste it? And what do they carry that jel in to the building with? Lets see…. one day uniformed men come in wheeling in huge barrels of dangerous jel. They tell the workers they are greasing the building joints or something? and how do they light it? Would they have placed millions of timmers on the jel packs?

    I feel very dumb about all this but even I feel that the people who did this were a lot more efficient than all that. A det cord of PTN that looks like electrical cable would be cleaner and neater and easier to roll into a building without causing alarm. It would be more explosive and just think, it could be drawn through the elctrical ducts that were already installed in every floor. just a simple tiny receiver is set at end of each cord that could lead to a thermite match (hey so there is maybe thermite involved) which would then ignite the det cord and lead to tangent of det cord to internal columns and all across the flooring. You don’t have ot have the thermite match but if they wanted to be double sure of destruciton. the tiny receiver is controlled by pre-programed software in a laptop computer which is in a hellicopter flying nearby. after the plane hits, they know which floors to start the demolition…. seems they waited a short time… had to give time for a few people to get out and let the fuel fire burn… when the fire was just about at its limit,,, pow… time to start the explosions…… as if the fire started the reaction.

  7. Folks:

    Indeed, from the 90’s I have found some US Military PATENTS:

    They advertise the relative silence of those thermitic devices:

    “For unconventional warfare activities requiring the destruction of machinery and metallic structures, an operational need exists for a device of such simple construction that the user has only to place it in position, start his time delay, and leave. From a tactical standpoint, high heat flux materials such as thermite have the greater advantage of silence; in contrast, high explosives would, without fail, arouse attention in the vicinity of the target area”.

    Here you can see a video a simple linear thermite cutting charge:

    • So what I saw was a big package of thermite I suppose, used to cut a thin piece of rebar. Now, imagine that thin piece of rebar is a 5′ x3′ structural steel box column with 5″ thick sides, and a massive 6″ thick bar of structural steel in the middle of it.

      answer me this: in THAT case, how big does that package on the side need to be to burn through that?

      Also, the link you put up is to an incideary anti-equipment type device using thremite. They have had anti-equipment thermite grenades for a long time. They are used to spread burning slag all around a target area, not to cut precisely and instantly through massive steel beams… nor are they used to “blow things up”.

      apples and oranges.

      you are reaching to try and cling to an already outdated model. even the paper itself states that they don’t know if this stuff was a low or high explosive. If Jones and Harrit make that claim in their paper, don’t you think it would be wise not to make it FOR THEM? But of course, it seems that that is exactly what they want you to do, now doesn’t it?

  8. Nobody but the people who did this know exactly what really was used for the “job” many OF US have just theories

    Jan claim that they did’t care about the sound and the large exections.

    I do believe they lowered it at much as they could.
    For example here i don’t hear Huge explosions in these pre- demolition charges:

    However i do support anyone who can prove it and i don’t care if they make ANY money as long as we can avoid a second PART anytIme soon.

    • Was that one of the twin towers in the foreground? If so, and they hadn’t been demoed yet, then that type of flash supposedly in the Solomon building, wouldn’t have been happening yet. Those demolition flashes usually ocure just before and during the demolition itself. I don’t know what that was, but I know what this is…

      This is an example of a corporation subtly editing out sounds of explosions in New York… AFTER the towers are knocked down and WHILE building 7 is still standing. Massive explosions, like the kind that NIST’s contractor, the owner of CDI, told them didn’t happen. THAT is why NIST says they didn’t test for explosive residue… didn’t HEAR sounds of explosions.

      And as it JUST SO HAPPENS… that is also the case being made in a certain faction of the Truth movement for the use of “nanothermites”?

      Lots of coincidences… so little time…

      here are those explosion sounds you were looking for. Just two of them. Notice that HBO edited them out…

  9. jlenon08, Your video of ‘no noise’ except a woman vaguely upset about something and I do mean vaguely upset…. is not representative of the towers coming down. The internet is crammed full of videos of the sounds of violent explosions during and right before the buildings fall….
    That video (was odd to say the least) is the first ‘quiet’ one I have seen.
    Like Willyloman hints at….. now maybe those videos will start disappearing from the internet….. like belated victims’ of 9/11
    That’s right… I said it seems the ones who created the deadly Twin Towers disaster, didn’t care about noise…. they didn’t care about spreading abestos all over NY, they didn’t care about people trapped in the buildings, so why care about noise? they sure as hell didn’t care about getting caught… they knew they wouldn’t.

  10. I suppose that after decades of CIA research into psychology and torture, they fully understood that they would get away with 911. They had plenty of practice with the Oklahoma and TwinTowers part 1 bombings to test our gullibility. It seems that most of the people I know don’t want to know the truth. It’s too scary and it’s much better to keep the blinkers on.

  11. […] (read my revised controlled demolition hypothesis , detcord floor system demolition theory , May 2008 “Open Letter to Steven Jones on the Subject of Detcord“) […]

  12. How to make the WTC look like it fell due to a plane impact?

    David Copperfield would say:

    “First of all you need a dummy plane for the official story, controlled by a perfect pilot inside or radio controlled. Let it roll a bit before the impact so the fuel can spread over several floors; that helps to cover the fact that you have to prepare the tower cut at a specific floor level. Use the plane impact to ignite strong charges to brake the tower’s backbone (just to go sure) AND silent cutting charges (thermite) to weaken the structure, especially in the impact region. But go sure no damage is seen on the other regions before the tower falls!

    When the top of the tower begins to fall (perhaps you have to give a little help with small charges), make it a controlled demolition then, for instance by using det cord hidden in the floor sections. This would cut the inner core from the outer grid and would solve the asbestos problem. But it would also remain a hollow WTC with only very much dust inside! That would leave an expensive-to-remove ruin and perhaps some easy-to-investigate marks, so you have to bring down the strong colums and bars in the core AND in the outer grid too, by using well placed & well timed strong cutting charges. Et voilà – the illusion is perfect.”


    Just to be clear here Scott, you are proposing that DET CORD was laid in the preformed electrical wiring ducts in the WTC trusses.

    I have a rather simple problem with this; as the possibility/probability of any electrical short occurring in an electrical system in such close proximity to DET CORD, would be such an unstable proposition for such a long range plan of setting this preplaced demo set up; that it is unbelievable that such a scheme would ever have seriously gone forward.

    I would not discount the use of this explosive at WTC entirely, but I think this hypothesis of such a long term ‘wired to blow’ scheme is very unlikely.


    • What do you mean “long term”? I’m not saying it was placed there when they built the damn things (as some have suggested), I’m saying they may have used the ducts to hide the detcord in the month prior to 9/11 when they prepped the demolition. They didn’t have to though. Since det cord looks like any other fiber optic cable, and since you can have det cord custom made by a variety of manufacturers, they could have simply run it alongside other cables in the more modern cable chases above the dropped ceilings. When I wrote this article, I figured the built in ducts would have been perfect since they were already embedded within the concrete flooring. Think about it. If you were designing a demolition that had to remain secret, where better to put the detcord? Being inside the actual concrete floor, the shock waves would travel in a linear direction along the floor till meeting up with a shock wave coming from another detonation 10 or 12 feet away. the result would be complete pulverization of the floor itself, not just breaking it up into chunks. and what did we see? It would also have the effect, being that close to the floor system, of acting like a shield of sorts, directing all the heat energy (considerable heat released by the detonation of PETN by the way, upwards of 8,200 deg F. That approaches the surface temp of the sun, don’t cha know) downward.. toward the trusses and furnishings in the room, hence truces reduced to microspheres and furniture pulverized and melted.

      • Wasn’t there some sort of cable update done on the towers about a month before 9/11? I can’t remember the details, but it could have been when the det cord was installed.

  14. I know exactly how the towers were brought down. By a device called. G.O.D. , euphemistically referred to as God.

    This is a Gravity Oscillating Device based on reverse engineered alien antigravity technology. It is set up using special pylons driven into the ground around an area, these are very similar to lighting rods in depth and appearance.

    When the generator [top secret] is turned on the device causes the gravity in the area to alternately become immense, like Jupiter strength and nonexistent, like there is no mass of the planet there at all. The effect is to pulverize the materials of whatever is within the perimeter with a final Jupiter sized gravity pulse which sucks everything to the ground with great speed and strength.*

    *U.M.S. [Undisclosed Military Sources]


      • Now now now…don’t be too quick to judge. I mean what’s the problem?
        Don’t you trust undisclosed and anonymous military sources? Really?..they are the number one relied upon source in practically all mainstream information systems.

        Anyway, everybody knows what happened at Roswell and the back engineering of those recovered flying saucers. Whatta you kidding?

        Yea, and look at how long the military has had this secret technology? Be reasonable – what? Do you think these guys sit on there hands…hell no dude, and they got trillions of dollars to sink into this stuff.

        Don’t be closed minded about this stuff…it stands to reason that God would exist, and if so that must be what took down the towers.


      • I think he’s making a joke or a point or a point with a joke. “GOD did it” is punchline…

    • According to the NIST report, there were 3 demonition crews on site by time the second tower was hit. The “special engineer” who told officials that Building 7 was going to come down turned out to be an engineer that CDI uses to monitor seismic effects of other buildings around their demolition zones in order to cover their asses with potential lawsuits. The equipment he just HAPPENED to have to make the assesment that the building was going to come down was the same equipment they use in that work they do for CDI.

      CDI was in charge of clean-up after the event, staying on site for 9 months making sure every bit of evidence was scrubbed from the site.

      CDI also took part in the NIST study, providing the rationale that NIST cited claiming the Twin Towers were not brought down by demolition.

      No one, NO ONE, has EVER tested for residual traces of high explosives in ANY of the dust or the other debris from Ground Zero. Ever.

      The RJ Lee report in 2005 concluded that what happened on 9/11 created immense heat and compression of materials AS THEY WERE SUSPENDED MIDAIR … hence the micro sized metalic spheres which could ONLY have been formed by superheating metal and it cooling, under extreme pressure, while suspended in the air. There is no other way for the material to have been created.

      Those are FACTS.

      Your theory seems to ignore many obvious facts one being that building 7 fell for 2.7 seconds of it’s 6 second “collapse” at the exact rate of free fall acceleration that exists ON THIS PLANET.

      Where do you come up with that assessment? are you joking? The “Jupiter’s Gravity Machine”? is that a joke?

    • Sorry, hybridrouque1…… that does not make any sense…. if a gravity machine pulled the buildings down, then how come all those building fragments flew out and landed against other buildings? How come all those people leaning out windows were not sucked out the window and down onto the street? (at a super fast rate)
      You must be joking….right? like Scott says….. you are joking…..

      • I think the joke he’s making is that the laws of physics were suspended that day and it’s ok because “unnamed government sources” tell us so. He’s a bit tongue in cheek at times

        • Oh, good…. Because I am a little dyslexic. I thought he was saying the dog ate the Buildings.

        • I hope he is joking, if not the first thing I would mention would be pyroclastic flows.

          Anyone viewed the new 5hour “September 11 the new pearl harbour” film touted by DRG as the film we have all been waiting for on 911.

          I thought it was pretty good but the length and structure of the film makes you sit through a couple of hours of ‘response’ arguments (Lihop) before going into Physics and CD which would be my starting point followed by all the other anomalies in descending order of provability.

          Otherwise you are going to get some dropout of skeptics from the first two hours who would argue they have not proved anything just conjecture.

          I saw Oliver Stone and his collaborator on Untold History Peter Kuznick on RT Abby Logan last night/ Today. I thought myself that the untold hisory series was very good, but copped out on 911

          The RT piece (Breaking The Set) was Interesting stuff, they make the point about false flags and how they are so commonly used all the time, then when Logan posed the LIHOP possibility on 911 Stone completely cops out saying I dont know about that it is not my area (Paraphrase). Kuznick interjected the Plan for new american century & need for new pearl harbour and fact that everything happened as wanted/ prescribed, but he also made some comment like the Administration was too incompetent to have done it themselves. (I dont want to go into subtleties of the Mihop being the admin being unawares and caught out by a Zionist plot using inside gov collaborators , they all fall under Administration to me one way or another.)

          The exchange was so odd and obvious it makes me wonder that there must be some sort of provision under a state of emergency status not rescinded since 911 that threatens anyone of influence or press with treason if they spout. It is just improbable to me that no one of note would stand up as is the case .(Except shark jumpers like Charlie Sheen)

          Now Banksy does a big high profile gatekeeping stunt for the OT too?

  15. The ‘God did it’ hypothesis is a satire/allegory of all of the weird esoteric “theories” for the destruction of the WTC towers. One of those “jokes” that could actually be taken serious by the particularly gullible.

    It certainly has nothing to do with Scott’s theory put to this page.
    Which I misconstrued as him saying was laid in foundation as the towers were constructed.

    The G.O.D. theory is more based on the “DEW-Nukes” type disinfo hurlant that is still popular, as well as “no-planes” “holograms” boiny bouncers that have flitted on by.

    I have to say that I did a lot of study of the sol-gel processes while arguing with Fetzer and his crew about two years ago. I still think that a lot of the disparagement of Jones is the result of the Fetzer-Reynolds Psyop run against him, beginning with the promotion of the Judy woowoo Wood’s DEW theory. A lot of what has been said about Prof Jones has been fabricated. But this is such a complex story of intrigue that it is simply Shakespearean in scope.

    Bottom line for this page, DET Cord is a reasonable hypothesis as an adjunct to a sol-gel product, which is in fact shown to be present in the dust.
    The problem of DET is it has no signature unless manufactured with a tagent, a chemical tracer. And it would be assumed that a standard DET would not be used in a military op, and the product would not have a tagent in it’s make-up.

    I must apologize for not going toe to toe point to point until resolution is achieved through argumentation here. I find the process futile unless a site is dedicated to such a long term procedure with sequential entries to follow through with. This is one of those blogs that is a clearing house for more up to date news, and there are so many topics generated weekly – daily, that I can’t possibly stay abreast.

    I do most of my serious work at Truth and Shadows when it comes to 9/11.

    I am not saying T+S is a superior site to this one, apples and oranges. One fulfills one niche one fulfills another.


    • your assumption that this was a military op is understandable if not a bit unrealistic. The military, whenever they can, outsources everything they can including demolitions. That’s how CDI makes most of it’s money, as a contractor for the military.

      Solgel is all well and good but you need to understand this, demolitions is all about control. No demolition contractor is going to take a job like this one and introduce some new manner to do their highly technical operation without first understanding that it will work as planned. period. end of story. they will use the means they are comfortable with in order to achieve their goal in the safest manner possible (safe meaning they aren’t discovered by something not working as planned)

      that explains the det cord… that and the fact that there was a crew running ‘new fiberoptics” in the Twin Towers right up until the day they came down.

      now, as too Steven Jones.

      i will not be told that info regarding him is “disinfo” on my site. I have the email exchanges with the man and the very public exchange I had with him still up on 911Blogger. I know damn well what he is.

      The problem of DET is it has no signature unless manufactured with a tagent, a chemical tracer.”

      Without a doubt, untrue.

      it’s interesting that you come here posing the notion that one cant test for PETN residue because it doesn’t have tagents. that’s the same bullshit line Steven Jones tried to run on me years ago.

      PETN is a high explosive in roughly the same family as TNT. When it goes off it leaves residues, signatures if you will that are unmistakeable. you can purchase forensic field test kits on the internet all day long. In fact, you can purchase these kits which can even tell you what class of high explosive was used and even specifically test for explosives like PETN by name almost. Jones obviously knows this but he tried to hit me with that same tagents bullshit years ago.

      odd that you would defend him and then make the same ‘mistake” here.

      as too Woods and Fetzer… maybe you forgot that Jones started off WITH Woods, Fetzer and Reynolds (TV Fakery Bullshit)… he was their partner for a time. all three disinfo assets started off in the same group as Jones.. what a shock huh?

      as too what this site does or doesn’t do, I’ll put this site up against ANY out there right now pertaining to the 9/11 research available right there on the side of the page.

      Doesn’t Adam Syed post there? Didn’t he back that whole “fly over theory” bullshit with those two assholes from CIT? And wasn’t Onesliceshort also a big CIT backer as well?

      oh yeah, I guess so

      uh, so no… I wouldn’t call Truth and Shadows a better source for 9/11 investigations than this site.

      especially after you come here posting that disinfo about not being able to test for the use of det cord.

      You think you picked a good topic to mess with me on? wrong

      • Well Scott, I am always willing to learn. Tell me more about the forensic testing for PETN and the post-explosion residues, and whether a taggant is part of the residue profile.

        As for the Pentagon topic. Are you saying that a 757 hit the Pentagon? I haven’t read anything here about the topic. So you will have to fill me in.


        • Well hybridrogue, why don’t you look it up? Or read this very article that you left this comment on…..
          and a tqggant is an added component to explosives that can tell where the stuff was made and maybe who even bought it….
          testing to see what kind of explosives was used does not need a taggant ……. for identification of ‘what kind of explosive’…..
          you say you have been reading this blog over 5 years…? Then you would know what Scott thinks about the object that hit the pentagon….
          you in a pissy mood today?

          • “you say you have been reading this blog over 5 years…?” Jan

            No, I said I have known Scott for that length of time. I have only dropped by from time to time in that five years.

            I am not in a pissy mood at all my dear…Lol, but some people seem to be.

            I have looked into forensic study of post-explosive events. I am not arguing with Scott, I merely asked him to elaborate on the issue as far as what the residual elements are that note PETN when a taggant is not detected. I am curious to what he might know that I don’t.

            As I made very clear, I am not saying that PETN or any other explosive may have been involved in the WTC demolition. I am merely asking for clarification.


            • EDIT:

              I am not saying that PETN or any other explosive * was not involved* in the WTC demolition.


              • that’s good because as your hero Steven Jones started to be exposed, he himself admitted that it was likely that “thermite” or “nanothermite” was only used as a triggering agent for commonly used high explosive compounds like PETN…

                … or did you forget that?

                …. or did you think we weren’t up to date enough to know that here?

              • of course it was used. witnesses from the first responders said they saw “bright orange flashes, going round the building, going down floor by floor ahead of the collapse” or something to that effect.

                do you know what that was? that was det cord. that was a typical description of a top-down demolition. not unique to the industry and certainly not unique to CDI, the guys on site since the second plane hit the South tower (according to NIST, the “official” version of what happened)

                that’s det cord, and that is top-down demolition 101.

            • you know damn well residues of high explosive detonation can be tested for in the debris of suspected bomb sites. Flight 800, sitting on the bottom of the ocean for how long? and they were able to test and find PETN detonation residue which proved it was a bomb or missile 9missiles use PETN as well)

        • Alright, let me clarify my question..

          All I wish to point out is that ALL commercially available PETN is laced with a taggant. A taggant not only identifies the manufacturer, it identifies the product. Therefore one must assume that these commercially available forensic kits will take into account the presence of a taggant as part of the post-explosion residual signature .

          What I am asking is whether Scott understands what the other residual signatures are, besides heat generation analysis, etc. What are the degradation compounds that would be seen chemically, other than the taggant tracers?


          • “All I wish to point out is that ALL commercially available PETN is laced with a taggant.”

            again, not true

            as you may or may not know, there was a piece of legislation a couple years prior to 9/11 which would have made that the case, but it was defeated and commercially produced high explosives like det cord with PETN was exempted from the taggent standard. so, no taggents. again, something that is not hard to find out.

            • “under the 1991 International Civil Aviation Organization’s Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection.

              In the United States the marker is always 2,3-dimethyl-2,3-dinitrobutane, usually called DMDNB or DMNB. Dogs are very sensitive to it and can detect as little as 0.5 parts per billion in the air, as can specialised ion mobility spectrometers. Other taggants in use are ethylene glycol dinitrate, known as EGDN and used to mark Semtex, ortho-mononitrotoluene (o-MNT), and para-mononitrotoluene (p-MNT).”~

              “you haven’t read anything on the topic of a 757 hitting or not hitting the Pentagon, yet you are a long time supporter of the CIT (fly over) crew?”

              I said I hadn’t read anything on the Pentagon HERE, at this site. I have read substantially from other sites.

              Now, I am not looking for an argument here Scott. I just wanted some clarifications.

              As far as PETN; the degradation products are; PETriN, PEDiN and PEMN respectively. However to detect these residuals takes a sophisticated lab. Something far beyond the ‘commercially available kits” that you allude to. Special and very expensive equipment. Whether you meant to or not, you made it seem as if the average person can order a “kit” and have the ability to test for such residues. Such kits are meant as adjuncts to a formally outfitted laboratory.

              I don’t know how much further to take this, or whether I want to given your obvious hostile attitude.

              I have already stated that I think PETN is a good suspect as one of the explosives used to blow up the towers. What more do you want?


          • Tell me Scott,

            You have the RJ Lee report, as I do, did you look at the chem charts for the degradation products; PETriN, PEDiN and PEMN? They did some detailed spectragraphic spreads there.


        • you haven’t read anything on the topic of a 757 hitting or not hitting the Pentagon, yet you are a long time supporter of the CIT (fly over) crew?

          that is an interesting statement you just made.

          do I need to go pull up comments of yours over the years on the subject, or will you explain why you just said that

          • “do I need to go pull up comments of yours over the years on the subject, or will you explain why you just said that”~Scott

            Don’t put yourself out on my account. As I said above, I have a great deal of study into the Pentagon issue. I just haven’t been involved on your site with it.

            I had a long drawn out argument with Frank Legge over this issue last year {by email}. I came to the conclusion the man is full of shit.

            Yes, I think that CIT has made a valuable contribution to the knowledge base as far as clarifying the flight path of the aircraft seen that morning. A lot of people are put off by the personality of these two, especially a very combative Craig Ranke. But personalities are of little consequence, it is the data they have uncovered that has merit.

            If you have specific complaints about the CIT information, I would be glad to take note of it. Or if you wish to point me to an article you have already written about it I would be glad to read it.


            • oh, I don’t know.. let me see… they came along and interviewed 15 or so Pentagon / Dept of the Army employees, with the blessings of the Pentagon mind you, and they came up with some people standing around saying “I saw it North of the Citgo and then it hit the Pentagon”

              and from that these two guys produced a video about how the plane FLEW OVER the Pentagon rather than hitting it.

              They claim their Pentagon employee “witnesses” are the most compelling SCIENTIFIC evidence there is, yet MOST if not ALL of their “witnesses” claim they saw the plane HIT THE BUILDING and on that little detail, they blow off their own “witnesses'” statements. they simply disregard that part of their “scientific” evidence.

              is that about the size of it so far?

              So let me get this straight… the big plan with the Pentagon was to get the plane to fly real low, making sure it was seen by everyone stuck in traffic on that major roadway into DC at prime rush hour in the morning on a clear day… they planned this now, remember that… and then they set off a massive explosion to make EVERYONE IN THE CARS LOOK RIGHT AT THE PENTAGON…. and then.. this was their big plan now… they flew the massive 757 through the smoke, right above the rooftop of the Pentagon for all to see….

              … and then they told everyone the plane hit the building.

              And no one saw the massive 757 fly over the pentagon.


              oh yeah, the two guys who came up with this brilliant theory both act like complete assholes pretty much all the time and if anyone dares ask them about how utterly stupid their little “fly over” theory is, they attack them viciously, even creating an “Enemies List” on their website.

              they are in short classic spoilers, and in fact, they’re not even very good at it. they’re pretty obvious when you think about it. kinda like Jon Gold. You a fan of his as well? and you don’t have to think long.

              strange someone as educated as you seem to be can’t see through something that ridiculous.

              • No never said anything about Jon Gold. Not at all in agreement with him.

                So then are you telling me that a 757 hit the Pentagon?

                Simple question Scott.


                • Obviously not, but something did. that’s kinda obvious.

                  • “Obviously not” you say about a 757 hitting the Pentagon…

                    No It’s not “obvious” at all, that’s why I asked.

                    But you think its “obvious” that “something did”…then why not a 757?

                    Love it Scott…you’re so like-you-know-dood, UP on this topic….


                    “snarky, but it’s not sarcasm.”???


                    Alright, whatever Scott, bottom line here? Your site–you win.


                    • no, actually… logic… I win.

                      Yeah, it is obvious that no 757 hit the Pentagon, or are you now backing Dwain Deets’ efforts trying to get a “consensus” in the Truth movement that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

                      Is that where you are now? As I recall, old Dwain used to be a CITer as well, didn’t he? And now, here he is, pushing the official version of 9/11 on the Truth movement.

                      Uh yeah, it’s DAMN obvious that a 110 ton 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon.

                      No, they aren’t going to fly a 757 right over the rooftop of the Pentagon after setting off a bomb so everyone is looking right at it.

                      that’s just stupid.

                      No, they aren’t going to just set off a bomb at the site and have everyone from air traffic controllers and eyewitnesses lie about seeing SOMETHING hit the side of the building.

                      that’s just stupid.

                      So… did something smaller, tricked out to LOOK like Flight 77 hit the side of the Pentagon?

                      Oh, I don’t know… they did find gear for a smaller craft at the Pentagon.

                      And oh, I don’t know… exactly what was it that Dwain Deets used to do before becoming a “truther” who now pushes the official story of the Pentagon?

                      Oh yeah… he headed up the drone program at NASA….


                      bottom line… I have more information than you.. and that is why I “win”… I’d trash your specious arguments on this site just like I would trash you at your little echo chamber with all those guys from 911Blogger who were viciously defending CIT back in the day when they were doing their best to divide the movement.

                      Location is meaningless. logic and facts, well… that’s different.

                      I wonder how many people reading our little exchange picked up on the fact that at first you claimed there was no way to test for ‘det cord” being used in the Twin Towers and then later after I pointed out a few things, you suddenly became an expert on what to look for when testing. I noticed it. I wonder why you tried the taggent disinfo prior to anything else.

              • So that’s your argument, a quick rundown of sarcastic rhetoric and handwaving dismissal?

                Click click click…bravo.


                • I think he covers the argument quite concisely , though I would also add that once it became clear there was no agreement on flyover theory their vanity made them insist still that their evidence was better than CD. I saw arguments that when Nanothermite is discovered to be a hoax then CD will be discredited – or OT2 which included wtc terrorist explosives so we needed flyover to still prove the conspiracy.

                  What is most depressing for me is that this bullshit is still ongoing, I was appalled at the 911 articles on truth and shadows mainly promoting this same endless row which started putting people off 911 truth 5 years ago. At some point you might have thought that people would have said ok we have no agreement you believe this we dont, I am not going to argue any more because that would be damaging for 911truth. Anyone going to truth & shadows is going to get a pretty dim impression of what 911 truth is about. It was essential to find areas of broad agreement (The best evidence) and PROMOTE that . AMPLIFY it. What I observe is the same old shit as 911blogger, and I would suspect that the whole purpose was to put people off and discredit 911truth as it was there.

                  • Furthermore, This is exactly what the lewontin cambell heuristic predicts though you seemed to take a dim view of it.

                    Promote a narrow argument get a small minority of people to select what is important and amplify that distraction leads to NO Change.

                    Encourage diversity (Of which Flyover theory is a valid part sure)
                    make a selection of the best most persuasive evidence by a jury of as many truther’s as possible, then amplify that selection on every supposed truth site-That could lead to change (If you still want your ill tempered rows on minutiae do it on the back pages somewhere having promoted 911 truth at the front)

                • uh, actually… no. That’s not sarcasm. might be considered a bit snarky, but it’s not sarcasm. That’s actually what they theorize, that’s their “fly over” theory, which has gotten such a bad rep, I notice you must have gotten the memo and stopped calling it by that name as well.

                  No, that’s actually what they believe…. and by “believe” I mean “pretend to believe for a paycheck”

                  as far as the “handwaving dismissal” is concerned, the bigger question is “Why does someone with your obvious capacities believe that stupid crap?” … or, better still, why do you pretend to believe it?

    • I don’t really wanna meddle, but I need to ask HR1 something.


      I’ve gotten to know you a little bit in the past month or so… Some through observation, and some through your own disclosures. So, I know you are “retired and retreated” and you are 66 years old (which makes you twice the man Jesus ever was ;-})

      You keep dropping stink bombs, but then you do not address the comments in people’s replies to you, or address the counterpoints, usually claiming that these conversations bore you.

      So… My question is not why you do it, but whether you do it consciously and intentionally… Is it like a pastime for you to see what you can stir up?

      • Lilaleo,

        As far as “stink bombs”..??…I suppose that is in the eye of the beholder.

        There are topics that sit and spin in ‘sample hold’ {if you understand synthesizer jargon}. There are topics that move on rationally. There are commentators who have short fuses. There are those who are only slightly engaged…there is a penumbra of reasons that themsleves shift over time.

        More often than not, I am surprised when I have “stirred up” the pot. I rarely have the intent of simply breaking bad and pissing people off.

        You speak of “counterpoints” __ and I suppose it depends on how we define a successful counterpoint, and whether one is worth addressing.

        So to speak to your rather wide open inquiry about my motives, that is a rather wide ranging response. I don’t know if it is satisfactory in anyway, but I gave it a shot.


        • “More often than not, I am surprised when I have “stirred up” the pot. I rarely have the intent of simply breaking bad and pissing people off.”

          That’s all I needed to know. Thanks for the reply.

  16. Mr Admirer states above:

    “Furthermore, This is exactly what the lewontin cambell heuristic predicts though you seemed to take a dim view of it.”

    Yes, I take a dim view of any simplistic philosophical cure-all the takes a blanket view and refuses to apply the particular facts involved.

    And I have heard enough of this nambypamby bullshit about “consensus” and “hurting the ‘Truth Movement'” …
    What fucking ‘Truth Movement’?

    It’s been 12 years and NOTHING has been settled. There IS NO singular “Truth Movement”…

    You think ‘blogger’ was a censors pit? sure it was. You think you’ll get a hard time on Truth and Shadows with your loopy heuristic shit? You bet your ass. You disagree with Scott Creighton on Everyman blog, and you’ll be treated like an asshole. That’s life pal.


    • Truth and Shadows to my nose is about as real and useful to the truth movement as American wrestling.

      Do all the actors sit around after the show and have a beer whilst laughing at how gullible the audience are?

      I said nothing about consensus. I talked about prioritization by the many (instead of the elite few who think they know it all), and promotion of the best stuff by the many which does not exclude diversity of opinion.

      • “Truth and Shadows to my nose is about as real and useful to the truth movement as American wrestling.”

        or Jon Gold’s old Truth Action blog. Remember that nightmare?

      • I am starting to get a bit more out of the video by the way. It kind of grows on you.

      • Where is Craig’s list of the best evidence on Truth & Shadows or your’s on your site.

        Everything is about how stupid and false other people and their arguments are.

        You are promoting nothing and increasing the noise background to hinder any actual signal from emerging. What did you want to achieve by this other than proving how clever you are and how stupid others are?

    • Scott,

      If you are so confident that your assessment, as outline in your sarcastic little digest of CIT is correct, you can make your case in a point by point debate, without any threat of censorship at the current thread at Truth and Shadows:

      “The Pentagon issue regarding the operation itself boils down to physical evidence, eyewitness testimony and aerodynamics.”~Onesliceshort – November 3, 2013 – 10:42 AM

      All are invited.


      • I have to say that is a fantastic idea, you could call yourself Andre The Giant, or Hulk Hogan, and continue the argument that has for 5 years put people off and distracted people away from what most consider to be better more conclusive evidence.

        • Or I could call you a coward and an asshole who is not willing nor able to stand up to a point by point debate.

          “what most consider to be better more conclusive evidence”~Admirer

          Who are this “most” you speak to? Do you have any verifiable proof that “most” are convinced “something hit the Pentagon”, when it comes to knowledgeable investigators of the event?

          If you don’t have the cajones to come out of your safe little click-box here, then drop the arrogance.

          Anyone with the guts remains invited.


          • For an indication. why not see what is and is not included in this new 5 hour documentary summarising 911 truth that we have been discussing here and has garnered a lot of support from truther’s as the best video yet on the subject. No Flyover theory, No Nanothermite but a lot of other (better) evidence.

      • Thank you, but I’m rather happy with the results of our little debate right here, aren’t you? You certainly didn’t offer up much of a defense against what I wrote, not that you could.

        I did find it curious that right after you pretty much conceded the matter to me, you came back talking about Deets and the statement I made regarding him and you said “it wasn’t obvious that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon” .

        Like Deets, the entire CIT team’s mission statement is to drive the Truth movement back into the waiting arms of the official theory, what Sunstein calls ‘cognitive infiltration” so I have to ask in what manner you meant the previous statement I quoted from you (roughly)

        But aside from all of that, since you have already made the statement on this site to another commenter that the Truth movement is no more, why run a sight like Truth and Shaddows anyway? I mean, all you guys do is trash Truth advocates, so what’s the point?

        For that matter, why worry about what Honniger says or what I say or what AA says… if you think the Truth movement is dead, what’s it to you?

        Anyway, I trashed your defense of “nanothermite” and “fly over” already… why should I go over there so your amen chorus can jump into the fray? It’s settled and as AA points out, it’s a waste of time. Both CIT and “nanothermite” (Steven Jones) have been readily exposed for the frauds they are. If you guys want to hang out in your echo chamber and pretend that isn’t the case, more power to you.

        • “I did find it curious that right after you pretty much conceded the matter to me”~Scott

          Actually no, I conceded nothing, I only noted that you can’t even make out what I said and read shit into it.

          “Anyway, I trashed your defense of “nanothermite” and “fly over” already”~Scott Declares victory …

          It’s horseshit Scott, but it’s your site, do anything you want.

          I concede NOTHING. I have zero agreement with Deets. If you don’t have the balls to debate the Pentagon in a full fledged debate rather than puttering around here making proclamations then to hell with it Scott.


          • we’ve already had the debate. you lost. remember? it’s right up there if you wish to read it.

            By the way, did you post that reply I made to the comment you copy and pasted from the other site? Did you do that in the interests of making sure your readers at the other site have a better understanding of what is actually in the RJ Lee report or did you ignore my request that you do so?

            the rebuttal comment I left is here for reference

            It’ll be very telling one way or the other, won’t it?

            Actually, I was surprised to see on the thread at the other location that you didn’t have enough information to know Deets was a HUGE supporter of CIT back in 2010. I railed on him about that. I also railed on him about other things. But now he seems to be trying to drag the movement back into the “official story” fold with regards to the Pentagon. So, you may not agree with him NOW… but you sure did a while back.

            Its funny that you slammed AA about “the Truth movement” claiming there was none just yesterday… but correct me if I am wrong, you talk “the Truth movement” in detail with one of your echo chamber buddies over there as if it’s still alive and well. Not very consistent of you, is it?

            • First of all Scott, I am speaking of contemporary Deets. Up to date, do you know what that means?

              Second of all that piece of copy and paste was from my personal blog not Truth and Shadows. So there is no reason to post your response to either, because my blog is a personal journal with very little traffic, and to T+S because they have nothing to compare your response to.

              The current thread at T+S is on the topic of the Pentagon, so anything about the WTC is off topic.

              Got that much?…is that clear?

              You don’t want an honest debate on the Pentagon or anything else here Scott. This is your own little fiefdom and what the lord of the manor here says is the law. That much is obvious to fresh eyes.

              Again, if you don’t have the balls to come out of your safe little niche here and debate the issues that is your own personal choice. But I call it chicken shit.

              After all, you threw out a spurt of rhetorical sarcasm, and act as though you made a definitive statement of substance. How would any serious reader consider that worthy of debating?

              My assertion is that absolutely nothing crashed into or hit the Pentagon on 9/11. The damage is from internal explosions.

              So if you think you can prove otherwise be my guess. And if you are confident it can withstand serious scrutiny lay it on the T+S forum.
              If not eat it and regurgitate it in cycles here, it’s your meal.


          • Tell you what Scott, I’ll repost your remarks as to CIT that you posted here on November 2, 2013 at 12:20 am to Truth and Shadows, and see how that flies there. Deal?

            Then you can read the responses and have an opportunity to defend that little bit of squattle.


            • you can be my guest to post whatever I write anywhere you wish to post it.

              • Alright then, I just posted it, but it might take awhile to appear.


                • oh, wait a minute.. you mean at the website you are promoting as more open than this one.. every comment is moderated prior to being posted?

                • It is already posted Scott.

                  So now you are going to jump on the excuse that it is moderated to cover for your cowardice in debating there?

                  All you have to do is read down that thread to see that Craig will allow any comments to be posted, regardless as to whether he agrees to them or not.

                  Don’t hide under the “fear of moderation” skirts and expect to be taken seriously. You don’t want to debate, you want the easy life of diktat on your own plantation.


                  • ok, I’ve had about enough of your bullshit. take your disinfo campaign back to your little moderated echo chamber, k? good.

                    you’re not going to bait me or anyone else with your sophomoric challenges and thus you aren’t going to get some fresh voices over there for you to fool your benefactors with. What’s wrong, rogue? They starting to figure out you guys are just sitting around circle jerking each other with your disinfo? They starting to wonder if they’re getting their money’s worth?

                    Why don’t you do this while you still have a little self respect… go on, invest some money in some clay and focus on the little dog statues. You seem pretty good at that line of work.

                    Truth and Shadows just like Truth Action before it, is a doomed little pantomime for a reason… we figured you out. Now bow out gracefully having done your damage like CIT and Morgan Reynolds and be done with it.

                    You know, I’ve been more than patient with you due to our shared history at the other site, but honestly I’m over it. You are rude and disrespectful purposely in order to derail one thread after the other. Frankly, it’s getting boring and predictable. Now your desperate blog whoring for T&S is becoming tedious which each increasingly disparaging comment you leave here. What’s wrong? Rob Balsomo got mad and took off any you guys need another antagonist to keep up the appearance of running a populated site for your donors? Well, you’re not going to get one from me and hopefully no one from this site will be naive enough to bite on that bait either.

                    Face it, you and yours have been found out long ago and this latest attempt at reclaiming a margin of artificial legitimacy isn’t going to work here. Keep chatting with Dwain Deets and his ilk on your site, that’s as good as your going to get.

                    The real Truth Movement has moved on, outgrown you and CIT and “nanothermite” altogether. So there you are. You had to know this day was coming.

                    Enjoy that video I posted. it’s good stuff. if you really were interested in the Truth movement, you would have already known that, though wouldn’t you?


            • Fine Scott, I’ll leave. But leave you with this;

              On the Pentagon you are simply incomprehensible and said nothing of substance.

              On WTC you have nothing but speculation.


              • PS. If the “bigger boys” from T&S do come here to sort me out, I would also like my criticism of your methods on this thread to be taken into account.

              • On the Pentagon, there is not wreckage from Flight 77 and certainly nothing that looks like a massive 110 ton 757 either in the yard out front nor inside the little room. No luggage, no seats, no massive 9 ton engines, no tail section. It simply isn’t Flight 77.

                As to the WTC, the evidence is there. That’s what we have been discussing. The molten metal could not have been created by office fires and a gravitational collapse, ergo something created extreme levels of heat which created that evidence. What that was is a matter for scientific testing. It wasn’t “nanothermite” and it wasn’t friction. You can call that speculation, but the courts would call it evidence and so do I

              • Hello, Mr. Creighton. Allow me to say a word this gentleman here please.

                hybridrogue1, it never occurred to any of you that posters “JustWonderingWhy”, “Christine LeBlanc”, and “Rob Balsamo” just might be the same person?

                It’s absurd, sir. It’s a false reality. Truth and Shadows is not valid.

  17. “or are you now backing Dwain Deets’ efforts trying to get a “consensus” in the Truth movement that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?”

    WTF? You call that “logic”?

    Forget it Scott, I call your whole act here jejune bullshit.


    • that’s exactly what he what he said at the consensus conference isn’t it? that there is “limited” evidence to show that a 757 hit the Pentagon so… we should believe it? Didn’t your little echo chamber recently cover that conference? Didn’t you comment on that article? Did you forget?

      I notice you still have made no real arugument for either “nanothermite” or CIT’s ‘fly over” theory that you support.

      and just for the record, if my bullshit was really as “jejune” as you say, would you be ranting, name calling and cussing right now like you are? I doubt it. Your behavior indicates you understand you are up against a superior argument and therefore you resort to a baser tactic. be my guess anyway, but of course, I don’t have your education, now do I?

  18. I am not attempting an argument or reasoned discussion here Scott, for on simple and obvious reason: It’s your site and you win.

    All you want is sycophants and yes-men posting here.

    Good luck with all that.

    If you want to know what I think about the Pentagon, read my commentary on Truth and Shadows.


  19. Reposted from Hybridrogue1 blog:

    I would be inclined to agree with Scott Creighton about his PETN hypothesis, as it all seems quite reasonable. But a lot of theories can seem reasonable, or plausible but for one fatal flaw – lack of exclusive evidence. By that term ‘exclusive’, I mean evidence that can only be interpreted in that single fashion.

    This is how persuasive rhetorical arguments are built; by a series of plausible suppositions that seem so very reasonable in such a presentation. Even the nuclear and DEW hypotheses are “reasonable” on those terms. Where they both fail is in lack of DIRECT EVIDENCE.

    Scott draws upon the RJ Lee Report on the WTC Dust. They discovered the metallic microspheres that indicates massive heat. So it would be the obvious next step to do the analysis seeking the PETN degradation products; PETriN, PEDiN and PEMN. But nothing is mentioned in the report as to finding such products.

    Some might argue that the RJ Lee technicians wouldn’t be looking for PETN, that no one suspected explosive demolition at the time of their assessment. But in fact the RJ Lee mandate was to analyse the dust for what ever findings it would show – an open ended mandate. They were looking for everything and anything.

    They certainly found something odd and suspicious in the metallic microspheres, and were then obviously aware of incredible heat being involved in the destructive process. But things they did not find were; PETN degradation products, or indications of radioactive products.

    Scott is perfectly willing to rely on the report – but only up to the point where it becomes a deficit to his theory. And that deficit is in the thorough analysis published, showing all of the chemical elements and their relationships in the dust and water samples.
    No markers for PETriN (pentaerythritol trinitrate) nor, PEDiN (pentaerythritol dinitrate)
    nor, PEMN (pentaerythritol mononitrate), and certainly not PETN itself.

    Having read the report and understanding the thoroughness of the procedures involved, the lack of such findings seem to me to indicate very strongly that those products were not there.

    So where does that leave us? With the one study, using just as sophisticated technologies that did find explosive residual materials; the Jones-Harrit Report on the discovery of ‘nano milled thermitic material’ – the only empirical physical evidence to date of explosives in the WTC Dust.

    I am left with the proposition of an exotic solgel, until further developments prove different.


    • typically I don’t allow copy and paste comments, but I’ll make as exception in this one case.

      as too your reasoning:

      I like how you pretend to be open minded to the evidence I laid out, without really providing your readers with that evidence and then you attempt to discredit my work by associating me to “mini nukes” and “ray beams from space” (forgetting of course that I strongly oppose those two ridiculous theories and forgetting of course that the “nanothermite” theory you push was created by a guy who started off his career in the Truth Movement with judy Woods and Morgan Reynolds… kinda funny when you think about it)

      yeah, real objective you are

      Once again your argument is specious at best. Claiming that the researchers at RJ Lee had a mandate to fully analyze the dust from Ground Zero does not mean they ran the required tests needed to find less-nitrated post-explosion degradation by products of PETN such as pentaerythritol trinitrate (PETriN), pentaerythritol dinitrate (PEDiN) and pentaerythritol mononitrate (PEMN).

      To obtain results in that very limited field, one has to rely on liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, which, you can correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t see that they conducted tests like that in line with looking for specific markers you claim are not there.

      Take for instance (and looky here.. I actually link to the study for reference) section 1.3 of their report titled WTC Study Composition and Morphology Testing Protocol page 3 (even give the page number like a real reference material.. nice huh?)

      Samples were analyzed using industry standard analytical laboratory methods as follows:

      •Samples were analyzed for asbestos using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) in accordance with ASTM D-5755.
      •Samples were analyzed for metals in accordance with NIOSH 7300 method, using inductively coupled argon plasma (ICP) spectrometry.
      •Samples were analyzed for mercury in accordance with EPA Method SW846 7471A, using cold vapor atomic absorption (CVAA).
      •Samples were analyzed for PCBs in accordance with EPA Method SW 846 8082 using gas chromatography with electron capture detectors (GC/ECD).
      •Samples were analyzed for PNAs in accordance with EPA Method SW 846 8270C using gas chromatography with mass spectrometry (GC/MS).
      •Samples were analyzed for dioxins/furans in accordance with EPA Method SW 846 8290 using gas chromatography with high-resolution mass spectrometry (GC/HRMS).
      •Samples were analyzed for particle characteristics using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), coupled with energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) techniques.
      •Samples were analyzed for silica using X-ray Diffraction (XRD) in accordance with NIOSH 7500 and NIOSH 0600 methods.

      as you can clearly see, the testing procedures used by the RJ Lee group, though they certainly comply with industry standards, they utilized a more general scope gas chromatography in their attempts to identify various pieces of dust and debris as opposed to the liquid chromatography which would be used to identify trace chemical agents present among other chemicals.

      “LC-MS is a powerful technique used for many applications which has very high sensitivity and selectivity. Generally its application is oriented towards the general detection and potential identification of chemicals in the presence of other chemicals (in a complex mixture). Preparative LC-MS system can be used for fast and mass directed purification of natural-products extracts and new molecular entities important to food, pharmaceutical, agrochemical and other industries.” Wiki

      Of course, the gas process won’t turn up the markers that you have been asking about, like the liquid process would. But don’t take my word for it. read Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) profiling in post-explosion residues to constitute evidence of crime-scene presence.

      Brust H, van Asten A, Koeberg M, van der Heijden A, Kuijpers CJ, Schoenmakers P.

      University of Amsterdam, van ‘t Hoff Institute for Molecular Sciences, PO Box 94157, 1090 GD Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

      Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) and its degradation products are analyzed to discriminate between residues originating from PETN explosions and residues obtained under other circumstances, such as natural degradation on textile, or after handling intact PETN. The degradation products observed in post-explosion samples were identified using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry as the less-nitrated analogues of PETN: pentaerythritol trinitrate (PETriN), pentaerythritol dinitrate (PEDiN) and pentaerythritol mononitrate (PEMN). Significant levels of these degradation products were observed in post-explosion samples, whereas only very low levels were detected in a variety of intact PETN samples and naturally degraded PETN. No significant degradation was observed after 12 weeks of storage at room temperature and the influence of high relative humidity (90%) was found to be small. Natural degradation was accelerated by storage of small amounts of PETN on different types of textile, resembling the clothing of a suspect, at elevated temperature (333K). This resulted in significant levels of PETN degradation products, but the relative amounts remained much lower than in post-explosion PETN. For PETriN the peak area relative to PETN was 0.014 (SD=0.0051) and 0.39 (SD=0.19) respectively. Based on the peak areas of PETriN, PEDiN and PEMN relative to PETN, it was possible to fully distinguish the post-explosion profiles from the profiles obtained from intact PETN or after (accelerated) natural degradation. Although more data are required to accurately assess the strength of the evidence, this work illustrates that PETN profiling may yield valuable evidence when investigating a possible link between a suspect and post-explosion PETN found on a crime scene. Due to the substantial variation in the degradation pattern between explosion experiments and even between sampling positions in one experiment, the method is not able to distinguish different PETN explosion events.

      Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

      again the key here is the fact that you seem content to harp on the less-nitrated analogues of PETN as the ONLY markers when CLEARLY the basis for the detection of high explosive residue is still nitrates. There are many tests that can produce extremely detailed results from extremely small sample sizes.

      But let’s just satisfy ourselves by saying….

      … no, you can’t discredit my work by lumping me in with “ray beams from space” and “mini-nukes”… but your attempt to do so is rather telling in and of itself.

      and no, you can’t dismiss the presence of high explosives like PETN in the demolition process of the Twin Towers because you “didn’t see” markers of pentaerythritol trinitrate (PETriN), pentaerythritol dinitrate (PEDiN) and pentaerythritol mononitrate (PEMN) in a test run with the wrong process looking for something totally different.

      in short, your “baffle them with bullshit” effort, like your mentioning of taggents before, falls way short.

      but thanks for playing. now lets see if you post this response on your website. I’ll keep checking back and forth to see.

      do you now understand why Gregg Roberts, Jim Hoffman and Steven Jones hate my guts?

      have a good afternoon.

  20. You make a good comeback Scott, nevertheless the fact remains;

    The one study, using just as sophisticated technologies that did find explosive residual materials is the Jones-Harrit Report on the discovery of ‘nano milled thermitic material’ – the only empirical physical evidence to date of explosives in the WTC Dust.

    I don’t “know” if anybody “hates your guts” Scott, I don’t. I just don’t think you have a case until you get someone to do that test on the dust for PETN. If you’ve got the pull and weight on this topic that you believe you do, then see to it that you get this analysis.

    If you wish, I will leave you alone. Just say the words and it’s ‘mission pack’ and I’m on my merry way.


    • 9/11 Truth Red Herring: Neoliberal BYU Has Financed, Staffed, and Peer-Reviewed Prof. Jones’ Flawed Thermite Distraction Since Day One

      Why Doesn’t Dr. Jones Test for Explosive Residues in that Dust?

      “However, our detractors could be counted on to do their best to use a negative result against us for P.R. purposes. They would say that we have a non-scientific belief, since a negative outcome from an experiment fails to shake it. 😉 Thus, the potential costs of doing what you’re proposing and coming up empty-handed, or worse, must be considered.” Gregg Roberts

      However, their paper suggested someone run these very same tests:

      “ The red material does burn quickly as shown in the DSC, and we have observed a bright flash on ignition, but determination of the burn rate of the red material may help to classify this as a slow or fast explosive. It may be that this material is used not as a cutter-charge itself, but rather as a means to ignite high explosives, as in super-thermite matches [30]. Having observed unignited thermitic material in the WTC residue, we suggest that other energetic materials suitable for cutter charges or explosives should also be looked for in the WTC dust. NIST has admitted that they have not yet looked for such residues.” Steven Jones

      Some Straight Forward Questions For Steven Jones on the Subject of his Research

      Jones sent a magazine an email interview talking about his “nanothermite” discovery and the paper you suggest is the ONLY proof of high explosives used in the Twin Towers demolition. Unfortunately for you, Prof. Jones doesn’t quite see it the same way you do. This is from Jones’ posting the email exchange on Blogger.

      ” … Next, if you succeed in getting a few of the “super-thermite matches,” I propose to send you the complete paper that we have — which includes a discussion of these matches along with their potential usage on 9/11. I think that super-thermite “matches” of this type could very well have been used to trigger more conventional explosives such as C4 in the WTC buildings.

      … A real demonstration would involve a C4 shaped charge applied to a steel column, with the cutter charge ignited by a highly-reliable super-thermite match (in turn triggered using a remote radio signal).

      These experiments would test my hypothesis.

      … About C4, we have not yet looked for residues and indeed these will be difficult to find UNLESS there was a taggant, which is unlikely (if my hypothesis of out-sourced production of C4 and probably super-thermite matches is correct…) J0nes from email he published on 9/11 Blogger…

      Notice he’s pushing that taggant bullshit disinfo again? Anyway, as you can see, he claims these are matches used to ignite conventional high explosives which were used to demo the towers. You can find a link to the Blogger page on my article linked to below.

      So Now Professor Jones Agrees with Me?

      so you think those “matches” brought down the twin towers?

      • The thing about taggants is not as you assume Scott.
        It is not a matter of them “being legislated” – it is a matter of internal industry tagging for self identification of a companies product, batch numbers, quality control, etc.

        So yes, any commercial product would have taggants.

        I didn’t say that I disagree with the likelihood of high explosives. Over and over again I have made that point…what I am saying, and will reiterate ONE MORE TIME…these explosives have still not been identified by technical analysis. Until the time that they are, it remains theory.


        • no actually, taggants aren’t required in commercial grade high explosives, at least they weren’t back in 2001 which is why I brought up the legislation regarding them. and taggents would ONLY assist us in being able to track the chain of possession of the explosives. first you have to run the tests to determine if those explosives were used in the first place.

          did you know if a building fire/collapse happens in New York and it is called simply a fire to start with, if tests are run to see if high explosive residue is present and it is positive, by law there has to be a completely new investigation. did you know that?

          and yet, the writers of that paper you keep pushing refuse to run those tests, just like FEMA and NIST and USGS and RJ Lee…. all had valid samples and ALL refused to run those tests.

          kinda cute, isn’t it?

          Jones and Roberts profess they want a new investigation into 9/11 and all they have to do is run those tests for high explosive residue on the samples they have in their possession already and they’ll get it.

          Even Jones and you both say high explosives, and lots of them, had to have been used…. and yet… nanothermite and no tests for high explosive residues?


        • Can you provide a link that proves your statement that “any commercial product would have taggants.” ? If the law says they don’t have to, then how can you say that ‘any’ do… as if they all do it?
          and over and over again, you just ignore the facts that Scott has left in his comments…

          • “In particular, taggants are known to be widely used in plastic, sheet, and flexible explosives.”~


            • Widely used does not mean ‘all’ or ‘any commercial product will have it’. It means the producers have a choice…. a broad choice…..
              you find any technical links?

              • “you find any technical links?”~Jan

                No I don’t need to prove this to myself. You have the term, do your own research.

                Of course the producers have a choice. But if you grasp the utility of such a system, then you would understand why it is a large part of the way business is run. The usefulness of tagging is manifest with positive benefits.


                • I have already, you’re the one who seems to be intent that taggants would be attached to PETN because any commercial producer would want taggants in their product….. so therefore , no taggants found would mean no PETN……. so you have changed from that ‘story’… and now you say that having found no taggants doesn’t mean no PETN…. oha!! because as I have pointed out…. and Scott has proved with links, that many producers choose to not use taggants…. the law says they have a choice….
                  now, the residue is what is important…. and someone , somewhere.. has the ability and the needed towers’ dust to make explosive test for PETN… the correct way…. maybe someone has…
                  ‘manifest with positive benefits’.. oh yes, hybridrogue….
                  taggants can lead the police back to the manufacturer. maybe back to the buyer, lead to what day and in what place the item was made….
                  taggants should be applied to everything… according to you……
                  what we eat, wear, tools, books, games, …. everything will be tagged to have a target line straight to who ever touches any item.
                  maybe they could even fix it so that if that item is too ‘fine’ for us, then an electrical signal would send a shock stinger into our hands!
                  Hey, maybe they could put tiny tiny little tv cameras on the taggents and then our clothes washing detergent could take pictures of how dirty our clothes were and just what we wash the most.(like maybe towels)…. think how helpful that would be … detergent producers could then swear that their newest product would clean towels better than any other… soon we would be compelled to buy (so they hope) separate detergent for each type of clothing or laundry item……of course it would help the police if the taggants, on that towel found beside the dead man, lead police to the last person who washed that towel,,,, wouldn’t actually prove who killed the man but maybe the courts (by then) have said that a towel washer is responsible for activities of the towel… so by law, the owner and washer of that towel could be and would be jailed for any mis-doings involved with that towel…. (and yes, someone could steal another’s clothes detergent)
                  yeah, let’s have everything tagged with taggants…

                  • Look Jan,

                    I haven’t changed my story one iota. Not even in my final response downthread. The simple fact is you misconstrue what I am saying.
                    I am saying and will reiterate that it is beyond reasonable doubt that modern commercial explosives have taggants, simply because that is the way business is run.

                    I was noting this to point out the fact that it would be absurd for the perps to use commercial traceable product for the job, and referred to it as “military”, which was also leapt upon as silly here.
                    So it’s obvious that once one gets on the wrong side of you people {Scott and yourself} you see red and do not think clearly about an opponent’s argument, but pick at every little thing…

                    Because by “military” I mean ‘sanctioned’ by the ‘government’ and in that sense all “military type” operations, even clandestine agency ops fall under the general meme of ‘military’.
                    But being strung and led by the nose for every misconception of one’s use of terms is such a drag that it can make one very cranky.

                    So, being fed up with this I will indeed make this my last and final.



          • Plastique or plastic explosives – A versatile explosive substance in the form of a moldable doughlike solid, used in bombs detonated by fuse or electrical impulse. C4 is a well known example.

            Sheet explosives – The solgels are manufactured in sheets

            Flexible explosives – DET Cord and other fuse like explosives


  21. “no actually, taggants aren’t required in commercial grade high explosives”

    You miss my point yet again Scott. I know they aren’t “required” by law. What I said, very clearly is that the industry itself uses taggants as a way of tracing their materials, for lot numbers, for quality control, and for shipping purposes. Not just explosives – for all industry.
    One last point ; until the actual analysis is done on the dust, the possibility remains that there will be no findings of standard high explosive residues.
    It is in the realm of possibility that more study could find a conclusive proof of a highly explosive solgel.

    Neither of us can read the future Scott, anticipating and expecting it to turn out as we have presumed is always risky business.

    It most likely will come to pass, that after all these years there will be no further tests…a tragic shame, but very likely. In this case, all that will remain is competing theories. Everyone is likely to have to live with that situation.


  22. Taggants are conceptually an aspect of the larger field of ‘Symbols’ – signs, images, etc.

    Many predators leave ‘signs’ of the olfactory kind to mark territory ownership. Humans have used sign and symbol sense the genesis of human beings.

    In money, there are many signs hidden in the intricate swirling designs framing the bill. In commerce products are tagged both openly as far as brand and price, but also with code numbers and symbols, that are only known to insiders.

    One of the reasons that taggants for certain materials and substances is not widely known is that they are TRADE SECRETS. Oft times so secret that they are not publicly even spoken of, and at times even denied. But the realm of tagging is ubiquitous, although most don’t consider such things.



    It’s only fair that I make one last comment to this blog before leaving.

    As far as personal opinion is concerned, I think Scott’s hypothesis of the means of destruction of the WTC is the most likely. That being PETN, DET Cord, and Thermite Matches in some combo.

    Unfortunately it will likely remain speculation, because the likelihood of new tests being done grow dimmer with each passing month. The likelihood that the residues have dissipated beyond detection after all these years is another probability.

    The only hope I would have is that the RJ Lee group did in fact do the tests for PETN, and did find the residues, but covered it up for the obvious political reasons. If that is the case, that part of the report may still exist and might eventually be discovered or revealed one day.

    Anyway, I will be promoting this page, and crediting Scott for his well reasoned hypothesis when discussing the WTC demolitions in the future.

    Take care, WW – \\][//

    • PETN is just one high explosive packed in det cord. They have others. PETN is just the most powerful and stable and therefore it’s the most commonly used in the controlled demolition industry. This is why I focus on PETN as opposed to other types of det cord. PETN also burns hotter than most of the others and judging from the amount of melting and vaporization of various metals and other materials, it seems to me PETN is the most likely H.E. used.

      For the record, the det cord theory is not limited to the use of that particular material alone. Det cord isn’t good for cutting the I-beams and the columns that made up the massive 47 column center structure in the towers. For that cutter charges and kicker charges (to move the beams out of the way) would have been employed. Basically, the det cord theory only deals with the part of the process of removing the 220 floor systems of the Twin Towers (110 each). Those floors were a big problem in the demolition design and I believe they made a mistake and used too much det cord resulting in the build up of WAY too much heat as a result. That heat created evidence that can be used to expose what they did. But basically, the det cord theory is just a variation of a standard conventional controlled demolition which takes into account the typical materials and techniques used by most in the industry.

      As to the deterioration of the H.E. residues in the potential samples… nitrates will deteriorate over time if left exposed to the elements but any sample you test will probably be one that was collected and stored in some kind of protected and sealed environment. But sample deterioration is a problem.

      As you said, the likelihood of getting these tests run at this point is very slim to not probable at all. But hopefully, as mass public awareness grows regarding the serious problems with the official story, so to will a call for someone running these tests. As you know, the Jones et al “nanothermite” paper actually put forward a call for someone to do just that. So, even as I understand that the paper itself is not as it was billed, the most conclusive proof yet, it does help in solidifying what I hope MAY end up being a part of that illusive consensus position the Truth Movement so desperately seeks. And I hope that as readers here can see, in the end as the debates rage on, we can come together from different camps and agree that whether or not this theory is the “best” out there, running these tests is ultimately the most responsible next step for our unofficial investigation.

      Those towers and Building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition. It just makes sense to test for the most commonly used H.E. materials used by the industry to see if they were in fact employed at Ground Zero on Sept. 11th 2001.

      and on a more personal note, I appreciate your statement of support for the theory.

      In any investigation, even unofficial ones, you take each possibility and runs tests to either include that possibility in the set of plausible explanations, or your exclude it. NIST and FEMA both excluded the controlled demolition theory out of hand without running any tests at all to do so (based on the input of the owner of CDI). We as the Truth Movement should be better than that. When Roberts told me he didn’t want to run the tests for PR reasons and Jones backed him on it, I knew at that point that neither of them were really conducting any kind of real investigation. We need to start back at square one, where we should have started in the beginning. These tests need to be run on samples that can be verified as legitimate and unaltered. Jones has samples such as this in his possession as do some others.

  24. My hobby-horse is “neutron nuclear DEW.” But if this discussion on controlled demolition (CD) with chemical shoots out my hobby-horse from underneath me, I’ll be happy to be set straight. However, the linked articles above together with their discussions document pretty clearly what has led me to my conclusions.

    [Disclaimer: I’m here because Mr. Rogue posted the links. Mr. Rogue plays a prominent role in those comments, and takes a thrashing. He hates everything about me, but I thank Mr. Rogue for helping me hone my case, nonetheless.]

    The CD discussions in this thread lament the lack of testing to definitively prove what explosive compounds were involved. Certainly, discovering traces of X [some explosive compound] would be damning. Rather dubious of Mr. Roberts and Dr. Jones to ~not~ want testing on their dust samples well after the fact, due to imagined negative PR that OCT apologists would stir up if the sell-by date expired and nothing was detected. Seems to me the world would want to know even at a late testing date. Even measuring vastly degraded amounts would be damning.

    However, I speculate that they didn’t want such testing performed (or published), because they knew that ~no~ traces of X would be found. This is even more damning, despite the imagined circus of OCT apologists trying to explain it away as “gravity driven pile drivers.” How so? Any rudimentary understanding of physics makes clear that energy had to be inserted into observed destruction. Zero results for X means that the 9/11TM has to keep looking for the true source of the CD.

    Mr. Rogue likes to echo the statement “no radiation = no nukes” to try to stop objective thinkers from researching this on their own. Readers can follow the links to see why this premise is malframed, so I won’t belabor it here.

    The “no radiation” (at the WTC) premise suffers from the same “lack of testing”, or more correctly, “lack of reporting.” Where’s the report that documents the systematic and comprehensive measurement of (alpha, beta, gamma) radiation levels to definitively prove them “at or below background trace levels”? If it exists, it hasn’t been made public.

    I speculate that they couldn’t juke the data in a believable fashion, so they punted to the tritium report where they had more freedom to play games. For example, they limited the scope of the report to finding plausible sources for the tritium that could possibly have come from building content (including airplane exit signs) and thereby ruled out considering tritium coming from a nuclear CD mechanism. They alter the implied definition of “trace or background levels” to be, in cases, 55 times greater than previous values. They stopped taking samples under the premise that their measurements were indicating levels well below EPA thresholds regarding what constitutes a health risk (despite being much greater than expected.) When their speculation into airplane exit signs fails, their stilted report ventures into weapons sites, neglecting to mention how many weapons were in the WTC complex, where they were, how many were recovered in tact after wards, and how these could possibly account for the tritium in the run-off from the WTC at the few places they measured, etc. The tritium report succeeds in accomplishing its limited scope, but that doesn’t mean it is the full story on tritium at the WTC.

    A side-swipe of Dr. Jones already appears above. The same Dr. Jones re-uses this scope-limited report as by-near his sole authority on tritium and skews it further. He frames the discussion as large nukes, rather than tactical ones. He only discusses fission and fusion devices and what their telltale signs would be in terms of lingering radiation. He omits mentioning neutron devices of any kind.

    When your validation efforts research neutron devices, do not get hooked into the PR rut that speculated how neutron devices would be deployed in the battlefield, had design goals to maximize damage to life forms (via neutron radiation), and assumed all nuclear energy and yields would be used efficiently to their maximum potential. No! As you research, you need to be thinking of goals and deployment that don’t want to maximize damage to life forms and are willing to throw away the lion’s share of the yields.

    Small tactical fission/fusion nuclear weapons are a challenge to design and deploy. Too much energy and explosive yield, in addition to copious amounts of lingering radiation. And they really can’t be used in tandem, due to inter-device fracticide.

    What makes neutron devices special? Neutron nuclear devices are fusion devices that allow the neutrons to escape rather than containing them, as fusion devices do, to generate greater and greater chain reactions and large explosive yields. Because the highly energetic neutrons are allowed to escape, all other typical yields (blast wave, heat wave, EMP, lingering alpha/beta/gamma radiation) are significantly reduced. Moreover, the neutrons can be aimed (somewhat). Think: “aimed out of the way (or up).” This helps in two ways: (1) It means the ejected neutrons upwards aren’t going to fracticide tandem nuclear devices that might be close by. (2) Aimed (upward) neutrons aren’t going to cause collateral damage to life forms relatively close by.

    There is much more to the 9/11 neutron nuclear DEW hypothesis at the provide links, including USGS dust samples that show correlation in various elements sample-to-sample, a correlation that can only indicate (1) involvement in the destruction [as opposed to inherent in the materials] and (2) nuclear fission (e.g., fission-triggered-fusion of the neutron device).

    Dr. Wood’s DEW theories are disinformation! But Dr. Wood’s presented evidence is ~not~, and it is the evidence that she wants people to study, her way of sneaking one by her disinfo handlers. The Anonymous Physicists used to complain that Dr. Wood’s disinfo purpose was to collect all evidence of 9/11 being nuclear and camp it under a kookie umbrella so it could be dismissed in one fell swoop. Dr. Wood was prevented from exploring too deeply (or correctly) into nuclear sources. But from the vehicle damage along West Broadway and the parking lot (and not trees, leaves, flags, humans) to the dirt being carted in, spread out, re-collected, and hauled out, nuclear methods are suggested.

    To the degree that enhanced radiation weapons (ERW — neutron devices) can direct their energy, then Dr. Wood’s DEW (directed energy weapon) isn’t that far off. The disinfo is in thinking the directed energy (neutrons) is to destroy, rather than to target out of the way and tactically reduce (and direct) other yields of the nuclear neutron device.

    One final thought. Mr. WillyLoman writes:

    PETN also burns hotter than most of the others and judging from the amount of melting and vaporization of various metals and other materials, it seems to me PETN is the most likely H.E. used. … I believe they made a mistake and used too much det cord resulting in the build up of WAY too much heat as a result. That heat created evidence that can be used to expose what they did.

    I don’t discount that various combinations of PETN and super-duper nano-thermite were deployed. They would have had back-up plans to their back-up plans. They could have thrown everything and the kitchen sink at it. Hell, it wouldn’t surprise me if their internal debates couldn’t come to some concensus on what single method should do the deeds, so part of the operation might have used technique A while another part used technique B. The leveling of WTC-4 at a line with the North Wing, the bore-holes in WTC-5, and the massive crater in WTC-6 have gotten so little study by the 9/11TM, it wouldn’t surprise me if maybe DEW-from-space was involved (I am on the fence and open to be duped either way.)

    However, the “WAY too much heat” that Mr. WillyLoman speaks of can be attributed to nuclear devices as well.

    More importantly, it wasn’t the heat per se that exposes the primary mechanisms of what they did, but the duration (& heat) of under-rubble hot-spots.

    Do the math from high school chemistry. What is the burn rate of PETN (in any combination with other things including super-duper nano-thermite)? How much would be needed and in what configuration to account for a duration of several weeks? As but one configuration example, think of an imaginary garden hose and ignore for the moment its diameter: how long would it have to be to support a single hot-spot of four weeks? (There was more than one hot-spot, and some burned longer than four weeks.) The answer is many hundreds of THOUSANDS of miles long. Not very Occam Razor, if you ask me, and this quantity represents the unspent and left-over amount from its initial purpose of pulverizing the towers. Even less Occam Razor and logistically illogical and unreasonable.


  25. “Mr. Rogue likes to echo the statement “no radiation = no nukes” to try to stop objective thinkers from researching this on their own. Readers can follow the links to see why this premise is malframed, so I won’t belabor it here.”~Señor El Once

    Not so Señor, I make that statement {not echo it} because it is true.

    The fact is that I have taken the nukes at WTC story apart point by point, and in the end, Mr Ruff’s assertion that “No radiation = No nukes” does indeed turn out to be the bottom line.

    But Mr Ruff is more reliant on my studies which come to that conclusion…


  26. Who would try to stop objective thinkers from researching this on their own?

    It is in the realm of an objective thinker to think for themselves. I would never presume to try, or even want to try to dissuade anyone from their own research, but rather always encourage such.

    Welcome Scott, to the woowoo world of Señor El Once.

    I brought you to the attention of the site on the matter of the Pentagon. But I should have anticipated this action from the nookiedoodoo man.

    My sincerest condolences.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: