Transcript from Visibility 9-11
As recorded on Visibility 9-11 with Michael Wolsey, April 8, 2009
Full interview with notes found here.
Niels H. Harrit on Visibility 9-11
April 10, 2009
Beginning at 17:10 –
Michael Wolsey: Now, I took many classes in college and one of my science requirements that I had to take was indeed an introductory chemistry class, so I am not a complete idiot when it comes to chemistry, but I know that many of the listeners out there may never have taken a college class in chemistry so I thought it might be helpful to…maybe you could give folks a little bit of basic chemistry lesson and lets maybe take a well known chemical reaction that folks can relate to and maybe explain that.
Dr. Niels H. Harrit: The key word is nano thermite. I would split that in two and take the thermite first. Combustion; the campfire burning…because what is happening in the thermite is basically the same thing as when the campfire is burning. Heat is developed and the carbon in the wood is reacting with the oxygen of the atmosphere, and it is basically the same reaction going on in thermite. Wood burning is something that everyone is related to. Ya know wood is basically is carbon, it’s like coal burning. And when coal or gasoline or wood is burning it is reacting… Continue reading
Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by “peers”, that is, other PhD’s and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I’ve ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.
Useful information for “non-scientists” about the process of peer-reviewed publishing, such as has been the case with Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction, and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials .
A peer-reviewed journal is also called a “refereed” journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this — that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly… Continue reading
Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust: Scientists Discover Both Residues And Unignited Fragments Of High-Tech Metal Incendiaries In Debris From the Twin Towers – A non-technical guide to the newly published paper explaining the identification of nano-engineered explosive materials in dust 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.
Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives: As Documentation of Thermitic Materials in the WTC Twin Towers Grows, Official Story Backers Ignore, Deny, Evade, and Dissemble – A detailed record of the development of bodies of evidence showing the use of aluminothermic pyrotechnics
Introduction – The obliteration of the Twin Towers was the centerpiece of the event that launched the ‘War on Terror’. Shocking on multiple levels, the events were especially traumatic for Americans, being the first bombing on the US mainland in modern history that killed thousands of people — civilians — in one day. Given the collective psychological trauma of the attack, it is not surprising that public discourse would remain free of observations that the destruction of the Twin Towers bore obvious features of controlled demolitions.…Continue reading
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Victoria Ashley, STJ911 committee member
Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust
Berkeley, CA, April 3, 2009 — A new study by independent scientists and researchers suggests the cause behind the catastrophic destruction of World Trade Center Towers on September 11th can be seen in the dust itself: active thermitic material, a highly engineered explosive.
The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal , describes a finding of “red/gray bi-layered chips” in samples of dust taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its destruction. Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the material, the study authors concluded that, “the red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.”
The study’s finding lends new support to the demolition theory put forth by critics of the official reports.
At a time when the American public is finding it difficult to understand the full story behind the current economic crisis, findings of a demolition raise new questions about how the ‘War on Terror’ — an enormous source of recent American spending — was started.
Officials with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), charged with establishing… Continue reading
From Dr. Steven Jones
A back-scattered electron (BSE) image featured in the newly published paper.
“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen
The paper ends with this sentence: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
In short, the paper explodes the official story that “no evidence” exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings.
What is high-tech explosive/pyrotechnic material in large quantities doing in the WTC dust? Who made tons of this stuff and why? Why have government investigators refused to look for explosive residues in the WTC aftermath?
These are central questions raised by this scientific study.
The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies… Continue reading
by John Michael Talboo
March 24, 2009
Debunking the Debunkers – 911Debunkers.blogspot.com
John-Michael Talboo (JMT)-Q:
GateCreepers.com is a collection of original articles devoted to debunking myths on conspiracy theories, exposing propaganda techniques of the mainstream media and government, exploring concepts such as the hive mind, and other such topics which dumb down the population and keep us in servitude. The site is also devoted to debunking the debunkers of several specific topics including 9/11 and the JFK assassination, our brother from another mother so to speak!
I have found that when debating people on the subject of government complicity in 9/11 they very often seem to be referring to one of the 48 myths about conspiracy theories discussed in your article, Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories, almost as if it was their playbook. This of course makes it a very good debating tool, as you can just say, well thanks for bringing up debunked myth #16 about conspiracy theories, next. An example of this can be found in the comments of a short post I put together for this blog in which I questioned whether Noam Chomsky had indeed dispelled 9/11 conspiracies with sheer logic. I would hazard a guess that type of result brings a smile to your writing team.
Did that article, or the site in general come about due to seeing these tired, often media propagated, talking points being parroted during personal debates? If not, how did it… Continue reading
by Dwain Deets
Marh 15, 2009
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
NIST’s Half-Admission of Yet Another 9/11 Smoking Gun
The U.S. Senate will hold a confirmation hearing this week on the nominee for Secretary of Commerce, Gov. Gary Locke. This cabinet position oversees the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency responsible for investigating and reporting on the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7. NIST tried to avoid admitting that there was any freefall acceleration when the building came down on September 11, 2001. All the way to their draft final report on August 26, 2008, nearly seven years after the event, the NIST report’s lead authors held firmly to their position that freefall did not occur.
Once NIST invited comments on its draft report, it was more or less forced to accept the indisputable explanations based on the publicly available videos proving that freefall had occurred. David Chandler, a high school physics teacher and AE911Truth researcher, provided the most compelling argument in video seen widely on YouTube.
In their final report issued November 20, 2008, the NIST report’s authors stated they had made a more detailed examination, and found a 2.25-second period in which the center roofline exhibited a “freefall drop for approximately 8 stories.” Chandler had measured a 2.5-second period. For all practical purposes, the time period can be thought of as two seconds.
The NIST report did not state the significance of a freefall drop. The significance is that during that… Continue reading
March 2, 2009 — Washington, DC ( electionfraudnews.com )
I first wrote about Susan Lindauer’s struggle against the Bush-Cheney regime in October 2007, ” American Cassandra: Susan Lindauer’s Story .” This was initially published in “Scoop” Independent Media ( complete series ) and carried by a wide variety of concerned Internet news sites and blogs. This interview follows the full dismissal of charges against her just before President Obama’s inauguration on January 20, 2009. This is the first in-depth interview that Lindauer has offered regarding 9/11. Below is part one of the interview.
I asked Ms. Lindauer to make her own statement about why she’s willing to go into detail now about 9/11 and the government’s handling of pre-9/11 intelligence.
For five years, I was the poster child for President Bush’s retaliation against Americans who opposed his War Policy in Iraq. In March, 2004 the Justice Department indicted me for acting as an “unregistered Iraqi Agent” (not espionage), because I delivered a prescient letter to my second cousin, Andy Card, former Chief of Staff to President Bush, warning of the dire consequences of War. More dangerously, I had decided to talk. In February, 2004 I approached the senior staff of Senators Trent Lott and John McCain and asked to testify in front of the new blue ribbon Presidential Commission on Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence. Within a month, I was astounded to wake up one morning to hear FBI agents pounding on the door of my house in Maryland with an arrest… Continue reading
by John Byrne
February 26, 2009
Poisonous anthrax that killed five Americans in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks doesn’t match bacteria from a flask linked to Bruce Ivins, the researcher who committed suicide after being implicated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a scientist said.
Spores used in the deadly mailings “share a chemical ‘fingerprint’ that is not found in the flask linked to Bruce Ivins,” Roberta Kwok wrote in Nature News, citing Joseph Michael, a scientist at the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Michael analyzed letters sent to the New York Post and offices of Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, and found a distinct “chemical signature” not present in the flask known as RMR-1029, which Ivins could access in his laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland.
“Spores from two of those show a distinct chemical signature that includes silicon, oxygen, iron, and tin; the third letter had silicon, oxygen, iron and possibly also tin,” Kwok wrote. “Bacteria from Ivins’ RMR-1029 flask did not contain any of those four elements.”
The results don’t necessarily exonerate Ivins.
The mailed spores could have been removed from the flask and grown under different conditions, resulting in varying chemical contents, Jason Bannan, a microbiologist and forensic examiner at the FBI’s Chemical Biological Sciences Unit in Quantico, Virginia, told Kwok.
“It doesn’t surprise me that it would be different,” said Bannan.
The FBI has asked the National Academy of Science to perform an independent review of the… Continue reading
Thanks to the French Association for 911 Information (http://reopen911.info) which bought the rights for France: ZERO, the 911 film (with French subtitles) is to be projected in major cities in France. BELOW PLEASE FIND LIST OF CITIES AND DATES. For those of you who do not know about the film, here is the eight minute trailer:
Schedule of projection events in France major cities (sometimes with presence of F. Fracassi: director of ZERO):
* 13 March 2009:
o Marseille – Cinéma Le Prado (20:00)
* 16 March 2009:
o Paris (6e) – Action Christine (20:00)
* 17 March 2009:
o Paris (6e) – Action Christine (20:00)
* 20 March 2009:
o Lyon – Cinéma CNP Les Terreaux – Débat avec le réalisateur F. Fracassi (20:00)
* 21 March 2009:
o Grenoble – Cinéma Le Club – Débat avec le réalisateur F. Fracassi (14:00)
* 25 March 2009:
o Bordeaux – Mégarama – Débat avec G. Chiesa (19:30)
* 27 March 2009:
o Saint-Etienne – Le Mélies – Débat avec le réalisateur F. Fracassi (20:30)
* 28 March 2009:
o Nice – Espace Magnan – Débat avec le réalisateur F. Fracassi (20:30)
* 4 March 2009:
o Paris (5e) – Studio des Ursulines (20:00)
* 17 March 2009:
o Caen – Cinéma Le Lux (to be confirmed) (20:00)
Clarification from Peter Dale Scott: I know of no grounds to accuse Pakistani Lt.-Gen. Fazle Haq of having profited personally from the drug traffic.
In The Road to 9/11 (pp. 73, 75), as earlier in Drugs, Oil, and War, I quoted an earlier book as asserting that Pakistani Lt.-Gen. Fazle Haq, governor of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), was allegedly “heavily engaged in narcotics trafficking.” My quotation was from The Outlaw Bank, by Jonathan Beaty and S.C. Gwynne (p. 48, cf. p. 52); but I could also have cited similar claims in Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin (p. 479), Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, Whiteout (p. 269), or M. Emdad-ul Haq, Drugs in South Asia (p. 201).
It seems clear that when Fazle Haq was governor, he was also an important CIA contact and supporter of the Afghan mujahideen, some of whom — it was no secret — were supporting themselves by major opium and heroin trafficking through the NWFP. A senior American official in Washington also told Beaty and Gwynne (p. 52) that Fazle Haq, who was “our man,” was himself “running the drug trade.” One could easily conclude from all these books that Fazle Haq was profiting personally from the drug trade. However the late governor”s son, Dr.… Continue reading
For several years now, self-styled “debunkers” have been claiming that William Rodriguez has been lying about the testimony he gave to the 9/11 Commission in 2004. For example, on Mark Roberts’ website, Roberts mocks Rodriguez;
“January, 2009: As promised, many of the 9/11 Commission investigation records have been made public. There is a wealth of material online, with more to come. I’m sure William Rodriguez will want to get the copies of the notes made by two investigators who interviewed him, to prove his claim that his story hasn’t changed from the start and that the Commission attempted to cover it up. (Don’t hold your breath for Rodriguez to publish those notes .)”
Not only have Mr. Rodriguez’s basic claims remained unchanged, the cover-up continues; his actual testimony remains “restricted.” One can only imagine why that would be. The wiser JREFers who have been holding their collective breath may now exhale, as Mr. Rodriguez has supplied us with copies of the 9/11 Commission Investigator notes in PDF form, which read in part:
“Rodriguez said on September 11, 2001 he reported late to work which was unusual for him. He said he was in the B1 sublevel ABM office speaking to Anthony Saltamachia when the plane struck the North Tower (WTC 1). He immediately thought the explosion was caused by a generator. Shortly after the first explosion a second explosion rocked the building and caused the office’s false ceiling to collapse. Following these explosions Felipe David, who was severely… Continue reading
February 10, 2009
On 9/11, the FBI believed that bombs were involved in the attacks.
How do I know that?
Because, according to the FBI’s website:
Following the massive terrorist attacks against New York and Washington, the FBI dedicated 7,000 of its 11,000 Special Agents and thousands of FBI support personnel to the PENTTBOM investigation. “PENTTBOM” is short for Pentagon, Twin Towers Bombing.
Indeed, the FBI told a reporter for USA Today that FBI agents believed there were bombs in the Twin Towers.
Similarly, the Washington Post believed that bombs were involved, as reflected in a September 21, 2001 article containing the following phrase:
In the hours after Tuesday’s bombings . . . .
Many firefighters and policemen also said
there were bombs in the Twin Towers.
And perhaps “the premiere collapse expert in the country”, who 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a “very, very respected expert on building collapse”, the head of the New York Fire Department’s Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in its NYFD history, who had previously “commanded rescue operations at many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters worldwide” thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been caused by anything else (pages 5-6).
But surely experts have since proven… Continue reading
February 1, 2009
In reference to our FOIA request, the FBI has sent us 13 additional PENTTBOM videos. This is the second round release (not counting the CCTV Pentagon, CITGO, and Doubletree video releases). Each DVD contains 1 video from the ‘menu’ list. Here is a summary of what was sent:
NE515: WTC ground scenes. Begins 5 minutes after first impact. Witness says he saw the first plane.
K3074: Footage of the second plane impacting the WTC. The video also captures the collapses.
NE418: Pentagon witness saying he saw a plane land into the Pentagon, followed by another plane (C130).
NE521: Starts just after first plane hits WTC. Interesting commentary by cameraman and his friends. Some audio redacted by FBI. Shows close-up of someone falling.
NE485: Fire department video. Shows a fire department on routine calls, then the camera man drives in a car to the Pentagon. Various scenes of the crash site.
NE519: Various WTC ground scenes prior to the second impact. Catches only fireball of second impact. Shows people running and screaming. Cameraman goes to his apartment, then back onto the street. Inside of a hotel lobby when the first tower collapses. No commentary.
NE522: WTC and various NYC ground scenes. Shows the FBI around a motorhome and then the video is redacted. Mostly just shaky camera work.
NE3075: Evan Fairbanks footage. Professional camerawork. Several witnesses. Famous second plane impact footage. Many shots near the base of the towers. Shows… Continue reading
The idea of such an attack was well known [and] had been
wargamed as a possibility in exercises before September 11.
- Professor John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate
School, Monterey, California
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, senior U.S. government and military officials repeatedly claimed that what happened that day was unexpected. In May 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said, “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.”  Two years later, President Bush stated, “Nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.”  General Ralph Eberhart, the commander of NORAD on September 11, said, “Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised.” 
Yet these claims were untrue. Not only had the U.S. military and other government agencies discussed the possibility of such attacks, they also conducted numerous training exercises in the year or two before September 11 based around scenarios remarkably similar to what occurred on 9/11. As John Arquilla, a professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, said, “No one knew specifically that 20 people would hijack four airliners and use them for suicide attacks… Continue reading
January 14, 2009
Posted at History Commons Groups
The National Archives today released a set of records the 9/11 Commission gave it. It did so today because the commission told it it had to wait until 2009 to do so, presumably on the off chance that people would have forgotten about it all by then. The records are in two groups, Memorandums for the Record (MFR), which are available online, and other records, which are not available online.
Editor’s Note: The National Archives 9/11 Commission Records URL’s have been updated.
Kevin Fenton, who wrote this blog entry today, is one of the great researchers working with Paul Thompson and so many other fine people at HistoryCommons.org (formerly known to most of us as CooperativeResearch.org) to document our history. Not just about 9/11, but about aspects of our lives so appallingly rewritten by media and textbooks. The work underway at HistoryCommons is absolutely invaluable, and we encourage readers to get involved and otherwise support that work.
I have been trawling through the ones that are available online and I have learned a few things of interest.
(1) Stacks of the MFR are not actually available. Either they have not been reviewed yet (pending), or have been withdrawn because they are very classified, or they have been made available, but have had the bejesus redacted out of them.
From The National Archives Legislative Branch – The Center for Legislative Archives
January 14, 2009
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, known as the 9/11 Commission, was an independent, bipartisan commission created by Congress. The Commission’s mandate was to provide a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and to provide recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future. The Commission, extant from 2003 – 2004, held hearings, conducted interviews, and produced a report.
When the 9/11 Commission closed on August 21, 2004, it transferred legal custody of its records to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The Commission encouraged the release of its records to the fullest extent possible in January 2009. Because the Commission was part of the legislative branch its records are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Approximately 35% of the Commission’s archived textual records are now publicly available. Due to the collection’s volume and the large percentage of national security classified files, NARA staff was unable to process the entire collection by January 2009. Review and processing focused on the portion of the collection that contains unique documents created by the Commission and those that reveal the most about the scope of the investigation and the internal workings of the Commission and its staff.Continue reading
Dec 15, 2008
by David Chandler
Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth (AE911Truth.org)
In its draft report, released in August 2008, NIST attempted to cover up evidence that WTC7 fell at freefall, but the coverup was transparent. In its final report, released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged freefall, but couched it in a bizarre framework that continues to deny its clear significance. Part I [of this video] chronicles NIST’s attempted obfuscation and eventual admission of freefall. Part II demonstrates that their replacement theory is based on fabricated evidence and is a continuation of the coverup. Part III will spell out the significance of NIST’s admission of freefall.
Go to www.AE911truth.org and sign the petition for a REAL investigation.
WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)
NIST has now officially accepted that WTC7 came down with the acceleration of gravity, but they still couch it as a phase in a 5.4 second interval they claim matches the 5.4 seconds required for their model to collapse 18 floors. The starting point of their 5.4 second interval is totally arbitrary. This new video highlights the August 26 technical briefing and allows Sunder and Gross to shoot holes in their own feet.
[Ed. Note: 28,393 views as of this posting]
WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)
Comment at YouTube: Some viewers have questioned the details of the measurements shown in this video. I have created a FAQ page to deal with these questions. See www.911speakout.org/WTC7-Measurement-FAQ.pdf
[Ed. Note: 2,974 views… Continue reading