Pilots Conclude OS Regarding NORAD is Junk

[wake_up_bomb]

Visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org to order your own personal high quality copy to share with friends and family. Thank you for your support!

War Games, Simulated radar tracks, aircraft exceeding their max operating limits by more than 130-150 knots, inaccurate aircraft position reports, false aircraft target reports, aircraft converging -- flying virtually in formation with -- and then diverging from reported 9/11 aircraft, fighters launched in the wrong direction, aircraft seemingly still airborne after the alleged attack, poor communications, phones not working.... What happened on the morning of September 11, 2001? Why were our defenses ineffective? Pilots For 9/11 Truth analyze NORAD response, Audio recordings as well as Radar data provided by government agencies.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Presents "9/11 INTERCEPTED" - (Full Film) MUST WATCH! - YouTube

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Presents "9/11 INTERCEPTED" - (Full Film) MUST WATCH! - YouTube

[wake_up_bomb]

WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions - YouTube

WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions - YouTube

[wake_up_bomb]

WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial - YouTube

WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial - YouTube

[wake_up_bomb]

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I) - YouTube

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I) - YouTube

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II) - YouTube

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II) - YouTube

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III) - YouTube

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III) - YouTube

[wake_up_bomb]

Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories

Professor Graeme MacQueen PhD

Abstract

On September 11, 2001 there were numerous advance warnings of World Trade Center 7’s collapse, and many people have argued that these warnings are evidence that the building was subjected to controlled demolition. But other researchers feel the warnings are compatible with the hypothesis of natural collapse from damage that the building sustained throughout the day. In this article I examine the arguments of one researcher, Ryan Mackey, who argues, using the oral histories of the New York Fire Department, that the collapse was natural and the warnings rational and based on direct perception. I argue that a close reading of the FDNY oral histories does not support his claims and does not remove the cloud of suspicion that hangs over the collapse warnings. The majority of FDNY members did not rationally conclude, on the basis of direct perception of damage to the building, that it was in danger of collapse; they accepted that it would collapse on the basis of what they were told.

Conclusion

I have three recommendations, which I add to those already made in the course of the article, for future research:

1. There should be a comprehensive study of the progressive damage sustained by WTC 7 on 9-11, taking into account all forms of evidence available and all sides and floors of the building. Of course, NIST’s final report on Seven should include such a study, but not all of us are confident NIST will do the job responsibly. In any case, why wait for NIST?

2. There should be a comprehensive historical and comparative study of all collapses of steel-framed buildings, whether total or partial, so that instead of warring rhetoric we will have a solid set of cases with which to compare the collapse of Seven.

3. There should be a study of collapse warnings and foreknowledge of building collapses—I would suggest the scope be quite broad—so that we will know how normal or abnormal the collapse warnings are in the case of Seven.

Until these research projects are complete I will continue to regard the WTC 7 collapse warnings as one of the many serious 9-11 anomalies that force us to view the official narrative of the day with skepticism.

For full paper click here:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ngforSeven.pdf

[wake_up_bomb]

9/11 – Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations

Frank Legge (Ph D)
Logical Systems Consulting
Perth, Western Australia

Abstract

There are several reasons why a large proportion of the public is resistant to looking at the scientific evidence that explosives were used in the demolition of three buildings at the World Trade Centre on the 11th of Sept 2001. The reason for some is that they do not trust their own calculations, or find calculations tedious, and instead rely on a trusted authority. The purpose of this paper is to provide an argument that explosives were used which does not require any calculation. The hope is that readers will be curious to see how this can be done and will read on and discover, perhaps with some surprise, that they are able to rely on their own judgment. The argument is based on material readily available for all to study, namely videos and photographs.

Conclusion

As no reports have come to light of any steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire, and as all steel framed buildings which had collapsed had done so due to explosive demolition, the logical way to have started the investigation of this surprising event would have been to question whether explosives had been used. This apparently did not occur. The organizations carrying out the investigations clearly selectively collected data and contrived arguments to support the fire theory and ignored contradictory evidence. This is in defiance of the scientific method and flouts the ethical standard of behaviour which the public is entitled to receive from their paid servants.

In the case of WTC 7 the use of explosives is not merely the most logical explanation for the collapse, it is also the most obvious when once examined: the collapse looks exactly like a controlled demolition in every respect. The duplicity of the three official investigations in avoiding consideration of explosives indicates that a cover-up is in place. This view is reenforced by the rapid and secretive removal of crime scene evidence and persistent withholding of information. The existence of a cover-up is prima facie evidence for the complicity of some part of the administration of the USA in the criminal events of 9/11. It is reasonable to believe that 9/11 was orchestrated to manipulate the public into supporting their pre-existing goal: invasion of Afghanistan.

Postscript

The case for attacking Afghanistan was based on the fact that it harboured al Qaeda. The claim was that al Qaeda alone attacked America on 9/11. Presented here is evidence that this claim was false and that the invasion of Afghanistan was based on a lie, just as is now known to be the case with Iraq. The avoidable deaths in Iraq since the invasion are now estimated to be over a million and, in Afghanistan, twice that.

Given the recent belligerent tone of the US administration toward Iran it is urgent that the knowledge of complicity be spread widely and rapidly in the hope that politicians will be forced to find the means to bring the present aggression to a close and also to prevent further attacks. Even if it cannot be immediately legally proved that the US was involved in the events of 9/11 the consequences of accepting the official explanation, if it is wrong, are so grave that the precautionary principle should be applied: current military involvement should be wound back and further military adventures should be placed on hold while waiting for the outcome of an independent investigation.

For full paper click here:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...apseWTC7_6.pdf

[wake_up_bomb]

Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage
Dr. Crockett Grabbe

University of Iowa and SeaLane Consulting
www.SeaLane.org
www.physics.uiowa.edu/~cgrabbe

Claims have been made that there is no direct proof that explosions occurred in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, but there are in fact visible photographs of collapse results that provide that proof. One such photograph posted in late 2005 is shown in Figure 1, which shows the rapidly expanding cloud of the North Tower that directly exhibits explosions shattering material with hundreds of pieces of metal cladding and beams flying in the air at the edge of the dust cloud. However, there is also a whole set of photographs posted on the web which can be shown through physics calculations to graphically exhibit the direct effects of explosions in the World Trade Center towers, yet these facts have not been previously investigated.

Conclusion

In summary, a number of photographs show the destructive impacts of explosions on many vehicles, such as those of Figure 2 and 3, as well as on a several nearby buildings in the vicinity of the towers. Calculations using a range of estimates from observations show the destruction from these explosions range up to 1/4 mile or more in most directions. These strongly enhance the evidence presented in previous studies, such the photo in Figure 1 which shows the rapidly expanding huge dust clouds from the towers resulting from massive pulverization of the non-metallic parts of the towers in mid-air, along with hundreds of pieces of metal cladding and beams flying through the air on their rim. All of them provide dramatic examples of the devastation of the explosions in the World Trade Center towers 6 years ago.

For full paper click here:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...nsEvidence.pdf

[wake_up_bomb]

Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to 9/11 Truth

By Laurie A. Manwell MSc, PhD candidate in Applied Cognitive Sciences at the University of Guelph

Imagine for a moment that you are trying to discuss the 9/11 truth movement with a family member, friend, or even a colleague, and are met with remarkable resistance (of course if you are reading this, you most likely do not need to use your imagination). On the rare occasion, perhaps you’ve heard, “Hmm, that’s interesting, tell me more.” More likely though, merely the mention of alternative theories of the events has of 9/11 drawn dismissal, joking, or even ire: “I don’t listen to conspiracy theories,” “Yeah I’ve heard some really crazy stories that the government did it,” or “How dare you mock the victims of 9/11!” You begin to wonder, why are some people less willing to examine all of the events of 9/11 than others? Is it really because they are obstinate or in denial? Is it because they are apathetic or judiciously lazy? Or perhaps is it because they are uninformed or purposely misinformed? Are there any other explanations? These are all very important questions to be explored if all of the properly investigated facts and evidence of 9/11 are ever going to reach the forefront of public consciousness.

Conclusion

What then, is the best way to advocate for a new independent investigation into the events of 9/11 in a non-threatening, yet convincing manner? And more importantly, why should this matter nearly six years after the attacks of 9/11? These questions will be addressed in the succeeding article, Faulty Towers of Belief: Part II. Rebuilding the Road to Freedom of Reason. As a prelude, let me restate the main goals: i) bringing evidence of the true events of 9/11 to the forefront of public consciousness for discussion and debate, ii) doing so in the most effective manner, to effect the most change, which will result in, iii) a new independent international investigation, concurrent with iii) eventual criminal prosecution of the true perpetrators involved, and iv) a concerted effort by the international community to bring an end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which were perpetrated on the basis of the attacks of 9/11. As presented in this article, the means of changing people’s attitudes towards objectively evaluating the evidence, and reaching all of these crucial goals, will need to focus on reducing automatically triggered defensiveness and enhancing intentional open-mindedness. Regarding the manner of change, let me leave you with a quote by Dr. Robert Bowman30 as an interlude:

The answer is one person at a time. But we have to speak up.
We have to raise our voices. We have to speak truth to power. We can’t just
sit back and let somebody else do it…We need to convince them that they
don’t really know the truth and that they should. We need to stir the pot. We need to create dissonance in their belief system, so that finally, it will wake them up.

For full paper click here:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...liefPart_I.pdf

[wake_up_bomb]

PROOF THAT THE THERMAL AND GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY AVAILABLE WERE INSUFFICIENT TO MELT STEEL IN THE TWIN TOWERS AND 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9/11/01

By Terry Morrone, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University

Introduction

In this communication I shall show that only explosives could have produced the large amounts of molten steel found at the site of the World Trade Center (WTC) in the days following 9/11. There is universal agreement by scientists in and out of government that the temperatures reached in the fires were much lower than the melting point of steel. (1-3) Steel could have only have melted (assuming no explosives were used) if it gained additional energy in falling. I shall show that this gravitational energy is insufficient to cause melting.

Steven E. Jones has made a strong case that some molten steel (or iron-rich metal) was observed pouring from high up in the South Tower (4). In that case gravity was not a factor. However, much more molten steel was probably found in the rubble than was observed pouring out of the buildings, and the purpose of this report is to show that gravity could not have played a significant role in its formation.

Although there are some technical points involved in my arguments, I will describe, in an elementary way, all the scientific concepts involved. This report will also provide references showing that molten steel was indeed found.

Conclusions

Since there was molten steel in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, and since the temperatures of the fires were insufficient to melt steel, and since the gravitational energy was shown to be very much smaller than the energy needed to melt steel, the Twin Towers and 7 WTC could only have been brought down by explosives or cutter charges.

For full paper click here:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ngWTCsteel.pdf

[wake_up_bomb]

The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites

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

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

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

The extensive evidence that explosives were used at the WTC includes witness testimony (MacQueen 2006), overwhelming physical evidence (Griffin 2005, Hoffman et al 2005, Jones and Legge et al 2008) and simple common sense (Legge 2007). There is also substantial evidence that aluminothermic (thermite) materials were present at the WTC (Jones 2007), and the presence of such materials can explain the existence of intense fire where it would not otherwise have existed. Additionally, despite agreement from all parties that the assumed availability of fuel allowed for the fires in any given location of each of the WTC buildings to last only twenty minutes (NIST 2007), the fires lasted much longer and produced extreme temperatures (Jones and Farrer et al 2008).

These inexplicable fires are a reminder that the WTC buildings were not simply demolished, but were demolished in a deceptive way. That is, the buildings were brought down so as to make it look like the impact of the planes and the resulting fires might have caused their unprecedented, symmetrical destruction. Therefore, shaped charges and other typical explosive configurations were likely used, but there was more to it than that. Those committing the crimes needed to create fire where it would not have existed otherwise, and draw attention toward the part of the buildings where the planes impacted (or in the case of WTC 7, away from the building altogether).

Conclusion

In any case, it is important for those seeking the truth about 9/11 to consider what organizations and people had access to the technologies that were used to accomplish the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings. It is also important to recognize the links between those who had access to the technologies, those who had access to the buildings, and those who produced the clearly false official reports. To that end we should note that NIST had considerable connections to nano-thermites, both before and during the WTC investigation. It is therefore inexplicable why NIST did not consider such materials as an explanation for the fires that burned on 9/11, and long afterward at Ground Zero. This fact would not be inexplicable, of course, if those managing the NIST investigation knew to not look, or test, for such materials.

For full paper click here:

http://journalof911studies.com/volum...and_Nano-1.pdf

[wake_up_bomb]

Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Scientists Discover Both Residues And Unignited Fragments Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics In Debris From the Twin Towers

Introduction

The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples. The present review of the paper and related research is intended to summarize those findings for the non-technical reader. To that end, I first provide a short introduction to the subject of aluminothermic explosives, then outline the methods and results of analysis of the dust samples, and finally explore the significance of these findings.

Discussion

The implications of the discovery of unspent aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade Center dust are staggering. There is no conceivable reason for there to have been tons of high explosives in the Towers except to demolish them, and demolition is blatantly incompatible with the official 9/11 narrative that the skyscrapers collapsed as a result of the jetliner impacts and fires.

The discovery of active thermitic materials adds to a vast body of evidence that the total destruction of the Towers were controlled demolitions, and to the subset of that evidence indicating the use of aluminothermic materials to implement those demolitions.

That discovery also undermines the oft-heard claim that no explosives residues were found, a claim that was never compelling, given the apparent lack of evidence that any official agency looked for evidence of explosive residues of any kind. Worse, the public record shows that NIST not only failed to look for such evidence, it repeatedly evaded requests by scientists and researchers to examine numerous facts indicating explosives and incendiaries .

I expect that collapse theory defenders will dismiss the discovery of active thermitic material in the same way that they dismissed the thermite residues: by claiming that the samples were contaminated and/or that there are other explanations for the origin of these artifacts than pyrotechnics in the WTC Towers. "Debunkers" have proposed that the iron-rich spheres were fly ash residues embedded in the Towers' concrete, ignoring that the iron constituents in fly ash are oxides rather than elemental iron. How will they explain away the bi-layered chips, whose red layers have iron oxide and elemental aluminum in the ratio of Fe2O3 thermite as nano-sized particles of uniform shape?

As the work of explaining away the direct evidence of explosives becomes more daunting, we will probably see even more reliance on the mainstay of arguments against controlled demolition: those alleging that insurmountable obstacles would face such a project. Three of the most salient such workability arguments are:

That the surreptitious preparation of the Twin Towers was too prone to exposure.

That setting up the demolitions to start from the Towers' crash zones was technically unfeasible.

That thermite is unsuitable as a tool of controlled demolition.

These arguments have taken on the appearance of straw men with their continued repetition -- including by NIST itself -- after being publicly shown to be based on false assumptions. The 9-11Research FAQ on Demolition addressed the first two starting in 2004, and Steven Jones and others addressed the third starting in 2006 by pointing out the existence of explosive variants of thermite.

FAQ: Controlled Demolition With Aluminothermics

With the publication of Active Thermitic Material Discovered it becomes even easier to imagine plausible scenarios that answer workability arguments. The characteristics of super-thermites and the features of the thermitic fragments described in the paper, combined with a survey of methods for the programmable wireless detonation of energetic materials available in 2001, provides straightforward answers to the most frequently-heard questions about the implementation of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers -- answers that thoroughly undermine assertions that controlled demolitions using aluminothermics was not feasible.

Following are the three arguments listed above re-phrased as questions. I start with the last argument, which is addressed in detail in the discussion section of Active Thermitic Material Discovered.

How Could Thermite, an Incendiary, Demolish the Towers, When Buildings Are Normally Demolished Using High-Explosive Cutter Charges?

As is obvious from a review of the literature on energetic materials, thermite-based pyrotechnics can be engineered to have explosive power similar to conventional high-explosives while providing greater energy density and much greater stability. Thus, aluminothermic cutter charges similar to the shaped charges used in commercial demolitions are entirely feasible. However, a variety of forms of thermite might be used to demolish a steel-framed skyscraper in a way that uses no cutter charges at all, as in this Hypothetical Blasting Scenario, which posits three types of aluminothermic pyrotechnics: a thermate incendiary coating sprayed onto steelwork, nano-thermite kicker charges placed near steelwork, and thin-film nano-composite high-explosives distributed throughout the building. The strategically applied incendiary coatings, ignited several minutes before the building's take-down, weaken the structure; but obvious failures start only when the kicker charges break key supports, and the thin-film high-explosives begin pulverizing the building from the initial failure zone outward.

Why Weren't Demolition Charges Triggered by the Plane Crashes or the Subsequent Fires?

Perhaps the plane crashes did trigger some of the charges. If so, their blasts were lost in the jet-crash fireballs, and their damage was insufficient to budge the Towers' tops. Thermite incendiaries in the core ignited by the crash would not be visible over the fires, unless dislodged to the building's exterior, as apparently happened in the South Tower. However, this probably wasn't an issue because, in contrast to conventional explosives, thermite has a very high ignition temperature -- above 900ºC. Thus, thermitic incendiaries used around the crash zones could have been designed to survive the fires. As for thermitic explosives, they could have been designed to detonate only on exposure to the very extreme conditions of temperature and pressure provided by specialized detonators, and to deflagrate (merely burn) in response to the kinds of pressures and temperatures produced by the plane crashes and fires. As a fail-safe, the demolition sequence could have been programmed to be triggered by premature ignitions of pyrotechnics.

How Could the Demolition Equipment Have Been Installed in the Twin Towers Without Tenants Noticing?

The simple answer is by disguising the equipment as normal building components, so that not even the workers installing the components are aware of the concealed pyrotechnics. Three aspects of the Hypothetical Blasting Scenario that facilitate this are: the stability and specificity of ignition conditions achievable with aluminothermic pyrotechnics, minimization of the required access to steelwork, and the use of a completely wireless ignition control system.

For full paper click here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t...tml#discussion

[weeman]

Moderator Note:

A number of [none reply] threads have been merged.

[marky78]

Originally Posted by wake_up_bomb

WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions - YouTube

wonder what the resident debunkers make of this? they seem to go on about how nobody heard explosives so therefore wtc7 was not a CD and by default collapsed due to fires.

[wake_up_bomb]

Originally Posted by marky78

wonder what the resident debunkers make of this? they seem to go on about how nobody heard explosives so therefore wtc7 was not a CD and by default collapsed due to fires.

When they cite eyewitnesses, it's irrefutable evidence, when anyone else does, it's ignored or dismissed. However, there are numerous professionals and experts in their field here pointing out that the official story is impossible, or at best, completely implausible, several mathematical and scientific papers showing the NIST scenario is impossible, numerous pilots and air-traffic controllers stating that the scenario related to NORAD is impossible, so it's probably better to focus on their views than those who are completely unqualified to offer an opinion.

[lobuk]

A very informative thread that contains a shed load of valuable information.

Thanks WUB.

[dogsmilk]

Originally Posted by marky78

wonder what the resident debunkers make of this? they seem to go on about how nobody heard explosives so therefore wtc7 was not a CD and by default collapsed due to fires.

David Chandler has always struck me as an intelligent guy, so personally I'm astonished at the sheer crankery of that video and I don't think anyone with rudimentary critical thinking abilities could possibly take it seriously. I'll see if I've got time to explain why later, though it beggars belief anyone would need to.

[dogsmilk]

Originally Posted by wake_up_bomb

Will this be like your 'critical thinking' here?:

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost....&postcount=454

I don't know - it depends whether it precipitates one of your spam attacks, apparent inability to read and comprehend people's posts and crazy theories like mass fireman false memory syndrome. If it does, it'll just be entertaining to watch you having one of your little episodes. I've given up trying to talk to you, and have decided you're best regarded as comic relief.

[marky78]

Originally Posted by dogsmilk

David Chandler has always struck me as an intelligent guy, so personally I'm astonished at the sheer crankery of that video and I don't think anyone with rudimentary critical thinking abilities could possibly take it seriously. I'll see if I've got time to explain why later, though it beggars belief anyone would need to.

I'll look forward to your explanation of the sheer crankery.

[wake_up_bomb]

Originally Posted by dogsmilk

I've given up trying to talk to you, and have decided you're best regarded as comic relief.

That's not very nice, is it? You've hurt my feelings now, I thought you liked me. I have a lot of respect for your opinion. However, if you don't want to talk to me any more and don't want to post on my threads then I'll just have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, I suppose.

[dogsmilk]

Originally Posted by marky78

I'll look forward to your explanation of the sheer crankery.

Well here's some thoughts:

Ok, first off he misrepresents NIST – like later in the video he's going on about how the buildings might interfere with the sound – NIST explicitly state the “hard building building exteriors would have acted as near perfect reflectors” of any blast sound – Chandler doesn't dispute this, he just claims they didn't consider noise passage – in other words, blatantly lying about what they say. He also ignores their considerations regarding the feasibility of rigging – you can read what NIST actually talk about on page 26 of the final report.
IMO NIST actually went above and beyond even considering explosives – they didn't have to and I'm actually surprised they humoured truthers to the extent they did.

What's interesting is the flimsy and contradictory nature of Chandler's bullshit claims.

Like he talks about witnesses – we can see on video the streets were pretty packed and a lot of people watched the building come down (Chandler cites two actual eyewitnesses that give accounts favourable to him and calls these “numerous”). Yet we're expected to take a couple of rather imperfect accounts as gospel.

That “BOOM” guy has embellished his story over time – you can see this in the Chris Mohr videos linked to on the wtc7 thread – adding detail that wasn't there originally. That doesn't mean he's deliberately lying, but he's spoken at truther events and got a bit of attention for his claims. It's kinda natural that, as it were, the fish he caught keeps getting bigger. The crux of of it seems to be he thought he heard some kind of countdown over the radio – a countdown none of the firemen oir other emergency personnel seem to be aware of. He probably heard something he could interpret in such a fashion, but I don't see how a guy thinking he overheard something over a radio (none of the people actually using the radio habve reported - though of course they're either in on the conspiracy or subject to WUB's 911 mass memory wipe, right?) and subsequently making his story more dramatic can be taken as compelling evidence. Chandler doesn't even consider his claims or give any consideration whatsoever to the validity of his claims - despite the fact they're not corroborated except by (AFAIK) one other person (he doesn't mention curiouly) who said they thought they might have heard something about it being brought down, but they're not sure.

Craig Bartman was a former Bush supporter who was very close to the building when it collapsed, suffered PTSD and experienced being lied to by the authorities about ground zero being safe, whereupon he became seriously ill. And he found sympathy and an outlet with truthers. I'm not saying he should simply be dismissed, but he's pissed off and been actively courted by truthers – and if you're that close to a building collapsing, I'm sure it sounds mad and is very scary and he has reasons to play up his story.

Chandler, of course, with his "numerous" two witnesses doesn't consider the legions of other witnesses who watched it collapse and didn't think it was demolished. In his TV clip section, it doesn't occur to him to consider the people he's imagining were hearing it be detonated were clearly thinking they were witnessing it collapse and not be demolished. If only they'd strained their hearing as hard as Chandler.

The problem is, we don't hear the explosions – in one of the most pathetic truther displays I've ever seen, Chandler has the viewer straining to pick up some kind of noise on the audio. Which he confidently declares represents explosions. It does not seem to occur to him that a collapsing building will make some noise – enough to make people turn round - and even a microphone aimed at picking up a conversation would easily pick up explosive charges detonating nearby. He declares the “explosions” are “a few seconds” before the collapse, seeming to conveniently forget the collapse was already in progress before the main facade fell. Supposedly in total silence if it was natural it seems. I mean, really – this straining to hear some kind of noise and declaring it's explosions is a truly pitiful display. Videos of the collapse do not give audio of explosions at time of collapse – Chandler needs to live with this. Only the the most faithful zealots of the Church of Truthiness could possibly be convinced by such flagrant crankery.

But wait! It was some kind of quiet explosives. Except, er, on that piece of video where we hear those loud unidentified bangs. Because apparently to Chandler a loud explosion sound proves explosives in building 7. A lack of loud explosives sound at collapse somehow proves they weren't so loud. In true crank style, he seemingly doesn't give a shit about how different pieces of 'evidence' he presents contradict each other.

And of course a fire lieutenant being told the building was coming down somehow transmogrifies into the ever elusive, mystery conspirators feeding information to everyone as part of their dastardly plot. The thought apparently does not occur that a lieutenant in the fire department would be told this a because it's highly unlikely he himself was assessing the building – emergency workers doing their job will be communicating relevant information so people who what's going on. But on 911 apparently mystery men in black or whoever who telling everyone what was going to happen and nobody noticed anything odd or whatever. Because of course, the wealth of available information showing clearly the building was expected to collapse remains eternally inconvenient – so it has to be some mysterious, unidentified third party who was somehow feeding all this information to emergency workers and the media. What a pile of tinfoil hat bullshit.

Chandler makes the 'we haz found nano thermite' claim – as outlined in the 'scientific papers' truthers seem determined to keep away from peer-reviewed scientific journals and confined to their 'peer-reviewed' back-slapping club. The 'peer-review' here seeming to be truthers reading what other truthers have said and determining its truthiness. This video precedes the recent work (set for actual peer-review and publication in a real scientific journal) which found this is not the case.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911..._030112web.pdf

I haven't been paying attention to the truther backlash, but I think we can guarantee James Millette is by now ten kinds of shill agent that has it all wrong.

Like I said, Chandler always struck me as a clever guy. But to me that video is a tinfoil sombrero with big antennas sticking out of it. Beep beep!