Friday 8/22 – Listen live – 8 to 10 pm Eastern on Revolution Radio:
http://www.freedomslips.com/ – click on the “Studio B” button. To be rebroadcast Saturday 7/26 11 to 12:45 pm Eastern on http://NoLiesRadio.org and then archived at the usual spot.
Guest Dennis Cimino, along with Jim Fetzer, recently published an article arguing that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and Kevin Ryan are all pushing limited hang-outs.
I disagree. Though I concur with many of their assertions about where the 9/11 evidence leads, I think Dennis and Jim are mistaken about the concept of “limited hang-out.” That concept applies to situations where the bad guys admit a half-truth in order to prevent the established institutions (mainstream media, judicial system, congress, etc.) from facing truths that would result in prosecutions/ruined careers of the most powerful; radically changed policies; new laws; and other major changes in the power structure. AE911Truth and the Journal of 9/11 Studies, whether or not they are right about nanothermite; and Kevin Ryan, whether or not his Another 19 exhausts the list of suspects, are all pushing 9/11 truth toward the mainstream institutions – where it can make a difference. Their cautious approach, for the most part, is not a limited hang-out, but a defensible strategy.
Engineer Wayne Coste will join us partway through the show; and other very special guests may also appear.
Noam Chomsky says, "The responsibility of intellectuals is speak the truth and expose lies." However, he and most leading left commentators refuse to call out the US Government about the contradictions and falsehoods about 9/11. The falsehoods are clear and visible to anyone who looks. This silence has left the false story that Arab Muslim hijackers were the 9/11 culprits. What these commentators do not acknowledge is that this cover story does hold up to scrutiny. This story resulted in an increased institutionalization of Islamophobia and left the key basis of subsequent wars unquestioned. How can the Left move forward while leaving behind those suffering from the consequences of the 9/11 deceptions? Robert McIlvaine, one of the most visible family members during the period following 9/11, will describe his personal journey.
http://vimeo.com/98357920
-Wayne
Kevin, You are citing the second in a series of 4 articles about Richard Gage, A&E911 and the Journal of 9/11 Studies, not just the one to which you link. Check out:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/04/on-c-span-richard-gage-leaves-911-truth-in-a-time-warp/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/14/limited-hangouts-kevin-ryan-ae911-and-the-journal-of-911-studies/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/16/reflections-on-the-pentagon-a-911-photographic-review/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/21/top-ten-911-cons-fraud-vitiates-everything-fve/
I recommend reading all 4 to understand the issues. And here's an earlier article by Dennis on Pentagon:
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2012/06/official-account-of-pentagon-attack-is.html
Wayne, I think that you meant to say, "does NOT hold up to scrutiny".
I really don't understand how anyone could give credence to the nuclear demolition meme. There are so many obvious problems with this line of reasoning that it makes me wonder whether it's even worth bothering to point them out, since anyone who thinks about it for a moment should be able to realize the absurdity of the suggestion that nuclear detonations were used to bring down the Twin Towers. But since that doesn't seem to be the case, maybe I should.
To get a nuclear explosion, you need a sufficient quantity of certain fissile materials, namely enriched uranium-235 and/or plutonium. The minimum amount required to sustain a chain reaction is called the critical mass and this amount determines the minimum size of the nuclear device. The smallest nuclear explosives are equivalent to several hundred tons of TNT. This size explosive device in the WTC would have leveled half of Lower Manhattan.
When a nuclear device is detonated, it realeases a huge amount of heat and light energy as well as x-rays, alpha particles, beta particles, neutrons and an array of radioactive daughter products of the fission process, such as cesium-137 and strontium-90. The blinding flash of the explosion is accompanied with a supersonic blast wave, visible to the human eye, such as the bright flash and blast wave that accompanied the explosion at Fukushima reactor three, which was possibly caused by an uncontained chain reaction in the molten core, known as prompt criticality.
If a nuclear device had been used at the WTC, we would expect to see a blinding flash, a blast wave, elevated radiation levels, radiation burns and radiation sickness as well as massive destruction to much of Lower Manhatten. Yet that is not what the video evidence shows at all. Instead we see molten metal, pouring from the building moments before it disintegrated, clouds of white 'smoke' billowing from the severed ends of steel beams. Molten iron and white 'smoke' are the product of thermite reactions. The bi-layered red-grey chips and iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust constitute evidence of high energy incendiary and possibly explosive thermitic material.
When it comes to the destruction of the World Trade Center, I see no reason to propose implausible scenarios of mini-nukes for which there is no evidence, to explain the destruction when the obvious explanation is well and truly tested and verified. It seems to me that there are very few in the truth movement who have any time at all for the anti-nanothermite/mini-nukes meme, and they're all hosted at VT.
This is very strange. Mark Hightower and I proved that nanothermite is non-explosive and cannot have done the deed. There is ample proof that it was done using mini or micro nukes. See, for example, "9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II" and a half dozen or more other articles on VT. These were not Nagasaki or Hiroshima kinds of bombs, but highly sophisticated (neutron or even positron) weapons, which have a radius that can be dialed (to 100 feet, for example, attached to the core columns of 208' buildings)–and they were directed upward. It is odd that this guy is attacking a theory that Dennis was not even given the chance to discuss. I have explained the inadequacies of "Explosive Evidence" in Part 2 of "The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference" and elsewhere. The USGS dust sample evidence is ample and compelling. Plus there are over 70,000 New Yorkers who incurred kinds of damage associated with ionizing radiation. He is attacking a straw man.
John Scrivener doesn't know what he is talking about but has taken a fabricated version of mini-nuke theory to attack. That is completely irresponsible unless he is trying to keep Kevin's audience from reading these:
“9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/12/911-truth-will-out-the-vancouver-hearings-ii/
“Mini Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle” with Don Fox, Clare Kuehn, Jeff Prager, Jim Viken, Dr. Ed Ward and Dennis Cimino
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/29/mini-neutron-bombs-a-major-piece-of-the-911-puzzle/
“Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/
“2 + 2 = Israel Nuked the WTC on 9/11”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/28/2-2-israel-nuked-the-wtc-on-911/
"Busting 9/11 Myths: Nanothermite, Big Nukes and DEWs” with Don Fox http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/19/busting-911-myths-nanothermite-big-nukes-and-dews/
“The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/10/03/the-complete-midwest-911-truth-conference-parts-1-2-and-3/
“9/11: A World Swirling in a Volcano of Lies”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/02/14/911-a-world-swirling-in-a-volcano-of-lies/
Since Dennis authored the last of these studies, he was prepared to discuss mini nuke theory, but like the question of whether A&E911 is a limited hangout, it didn't come up. So draw your own conclusions about this fellow. And since nanothermite cannot have done it, WHAT DID? And why doesn't A&E911 TELL US? The quantity of RDX or other high explosive material would have been enormous and the time-window for its installation was limited, where they had permits to gain access to the building using bogus company names. Mini or micro nukes would have worked while other methods would not have. Those are the facts, but you are not getting them from this guy or A&E911.
Gordon Duff has just published a new article about the use of nukes on 9/11, which further contradicts the post from John Scrivener. It begins:
"For the first time in American history, high level nuclear scientists have come forward about a massive government coverup. Veterans Today has published key sections of the highly classified 2003 DOE 9/11 Report proving the World Trade Center was destroyed by specialized nuclear munitions originating from stolen American warheads.
"For those who have chosen to ignore the inexorable proofs already published, we now, with the cooperation of the DOE investigating team, publish the most comprehensive demonstration of nuclear weapons technology knowledge ever made available.
"The original investigators at Ground Zero say they are no longer being silenced, that the current administration has lifted their gag orders. They have also said that their contacts inside the highest levels of the US government’s security apparatus have warned them that many “9/11 activists” are, in fact, running a sting operation, aiding the DHS and other agencies in their illegal surveillance activities.
"They cite the largest and best financed groups as not gate keepers but “professional snitches.” With the bulk of 9/11 material either wild speculation or bizarre “gatekeeper” theories, the work below is our way of raising the bar to a point others can never hope to emulate.
"When I contacted the DOE team, they had been following the continuing 9/11 cover up, now, according to them, being run by the “Truther” movement itself. Toward that end, “daylight” is the best way of fighting darkness. Many claim to be experts, explosives, engineering and so on. When real experts let loose, angry at the police informants and “sniffer” types, we all benefit."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/24/vt-flexing-its-nuclear-muscle/
Berkeley has long been home to intelligence gathering.
Some outfits were/are Kosher and some are not.
J. Marx Ayers was the founder of AE9/11 Truth. Now, what does the NSA do with their list of donors?
Jim Fetzer accuses me of not knowing what I'm talking about. Jim has several problems that he needs to address before he goes accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about.
Firstly, Jim needs to address his refusal or inability to read and comprehend the paper entitled "Energetic thermitic material found in the WTC dust" which documents the bi-layered chips containing nanothermite that have been discovered in the dust. To date, Jim simply denies the evidence documented in this paper. Denial is not a satisfactory response to any argument I present in regard to the question of how the WTC was demolished.
Secondly, Jim needs to address the very obvious emotional and egotistic issues he has in relation to Steven Jones. I suspect that Jim harbours a degree of animosity and perhaps professional envy in his relationship with Dr Jones and I believe this personality conflict interferes with Jim's ability to think logically and objectively when it comes to the work done by Jones et al.
Thirdly, Jim needs to address the situation whereby the only 9/11 truth activists who promote the min-nukes meme and simultaneously deny or denigrate the importance of Jones work are all hosted at VT.
Fourthly, Jim needs to address the reasons why he seems to be more interested in attacking fellow truth activists and provoking conflict within the truth community that anything else.
The common denominators for VT and AE are that explosives were used to bring down the towers, and the NIST study is a failed attempt to avoid bringing the issue of explosives to light. It seems that these facts should provide enough common ground for some agreement and cooperation between VT and AE.
Amen.
Just when I thought I've heard the weakest of the 9/11 nuke denying arguments along comes Wayne Coste and takes the cake. Wayne's "sound analysis" is a complete joke. Wayne makes an apples to watermelons comparison of joules of energy to volume which is fatally flawed. You can't compare chemical explosives like TNT and nukes – they are two different animals. Nukes don't pop like lightning or TNT – they make a rumble. Which is exactly what we hear in 9/11 Eyewitness.
You should watch the whole thing but here are some highlights:
5:55 massive rumble as the South Tower collapses in a pile of dust. There wer 9 massive explosions before the South Tower came down.
37:50 another massive rumble as the North Tower gets nuked. Pyroclastic flow indicative of a nuclear detonation envelopes Lower Manhattan and a huge mushroom cloud rises above NYC. Telltale signs of nukes.
44:30 analysis of the sounds of the North Tower getting nuked. Much better analysis than what Wayne has offered up.
Of course Wayne doesn't attempt to refute the proof of fission in the USGS dust samples. Wayne probably wouldn't know a fission pathway if one bit him in the ass. Here are a few for you:
Strontium is produced by a fission pathway that proceeds through the Noble Gas Krypton and then the Alkali Metal Rubidium. Similarly, Barium is produced through Xenon and the Alkali Metal Cesium. We know that Uranium fission favors these pathways through the Noble Gases. Just as radioactive isotopes of Krypton and Xenon decay by beta particle emission to produce Rubidium and Cesium, radioactive isotopes of Neon and Argon also decay by beta emission to produce Sodium and Potassium. We would indeed expect to find anomalous levels of these elements present – what was found is again consistent with the occurrence of nuclear fission.
As though further confirmation were needed that John Scrivener does not know what he is talking about, he is oblivious of the fact that T. Mark Hightower and I published THREE ARTICLES explaining why, even if those chips were found in the dust, that nanothermite cannot possibly have blown those buildings apart from the top down:
“Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html
"Is '9/11 Truth' based upon a false theory?"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/
“Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/27/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit/
It is embarrassing when someone like him displays such disdain for those of us who are attempting to get things straight and defends those whose theories are not remotely defensible. I bear no animosity toward Steven–I made him co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth when I founded the society in December 2005–but when he and others split from Scholars because they did not want to discuss any theory other than nanothermite, it was apparent to me that his attitude was unscientific by disregarding new evidence and alternative hypotheses.
As I explained in "On the manipulation of the 9/11 research community" (presented on 17 May 2007 on "The Dynamic Duo" and transcribed and archived on Scholars for 9/11 Truth at http://twilightpines.com/images/themanipulationofthe911community.pdf), I feel I bear some responsibility for having placed him in that position, where ignoring the USGS dust samples and the 70,000+ victims in New York who have suffered the effects of ionizing radiation is simply inexcusable.
As in the case of the JFK community, where as much as 90% appear to be working the other side of the street, it would be extremely naive to assume that the situation is not comparable with regard to 9/11. The best possible way to distract attention from real proofs of complicity by the CIA, the Neo-Cons and the Mossad follow from (a) not discussing who and why, (b) not addressing the faking of all four crash sites and (c) ignoring the proof that it was done using sophisticated devices that could not possibly have been deployed by 19 Islamic terrorists.
A&E911, Steve Jones and Kevin Ryan have had six years to impress the public with their nanothermite theory. It hasn't caught on, because the presence of an obscure incendiary in dust samples is not going to excite the public. Tell them that no plane hit the Pentagon or that New York was nuked on 9/11, by contrast, packs the kind of punch that just might work.
Even Jesse Ventura captivated the public with his observation, "How do you take out three buildings with two planes?" And even the new display of the collapse of WTC-7 in Times Square would pack immeasurably more punch if you combined its 6.5 second collapse with comparable time for Larry Silverstein to say, "Let's pull it!"
The only way to make progress is to be self-critical about how we might do some of this better. Years of promoting the theory of nanothermite hasn't worked and those who are sticking up for an unsuccessful approach to awakening the public deserve to have their own motives questioned.