Michael Wolsey's Blog
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’
by Victoria Ashley
Version 1.1, Aug 1, 2009
Table of Contents
* The Opposite of Science
* History of the Flyover Theory
* One Fifth of a Theory at Best
* In Search of a Flyover Witness
* A Pattern of Disruption
* Recommended Reading
This essay examines the work of the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), a team of two people who claim to prove that a complicated “magic show” occurred during the Pentagon attack on 9/11/01, fooling all of the witnesses and surviving victims of the event into believing that American Airlines Flight 77 (AA77) hit the Pentagon, when instead, it flew just over the building, obscured by a simultaneous explosion, and then somehow flew away, unnoticed by anyone in the area (the “flyover” theory). CIT took their camcorders and went to Washington, DC, where they interviewed a select group of Pentagon attack eye witnesses whom they believe, indicate a different flightpath from the accepted flightpath (the one described by a trail of damage leading up to the building). These interviews, it is claimed, provide the primary “evidence” for the flyover theory.
Or so we are led to believe.
The general conclusion that “no plane” or “no Boeing” could have hit the Pentagon — widely accepted by skeptics of the official version of events of the Pentagon attack, even as it is generally not carefully examined — is based on a series of erroneous physical evidence claims. The details of these common errors made by investigators of the Pentagon attack are not the purpose of this essay, but have already been described in What the Physical Evidence Shows.
The purpose of this essay is to critically examine the claims, methods and themes employed by CIT in their attempts to make the case for the flyover theory. This essay will show that CIT’s claims about what happened in the Pentagon attack on 9/11/01 are without a meaningful scientific process and are reliant on biased interpretations of broad statements made by less than 20 witnesses to the attack, 8 years after the event. The witness recordings made by CIT are sometimes muddled, are significantly edited, and at times appear to have almost nothing to do with what CIT interprets from them, leaving many video viewers and forum readers, told they would see “proofs”, frustrated and perplexed about what is going on.
At the heart of it, what CIT has really created from the witness accounts is an elaborate historical fictional drama focused around the narrow theme of witnesses appearing to describe a different flightpath for the plane that day. Without any viable corroborating evidence for the claim that the plane never hit, but instead flew over the building, the filmmakers instead offer up a fascinating premise:
“Everything was faked!”
So what began as an innocent sounding exploration of discrepancies in eye witness testimony, moves on to “proofs” of how the existing damage incurred during the attack could not have happened from the impact of a large Boeing. A summary of the many “it was faked” claims indicates a somewhat daunting if not entirely ridiculous premise for the “flyover”:
* Lamp posts downed by plane impact: faked* Generator damage by engine impact: faked
* Boeing parts on the ground and inside the building: faked
* Impact hole cutout in the Pentagon matching a 757-sized jetliner: faked
* Recovered DNA identifying Flight 77 passengers and crew: faked
* Recovered victim personal effects provided to family members: faked
* All witnesses to the plane impact: plants or confused about what they saw plane crash damage and debris
Pardon Our Dust, or, Why the World Trade Center Dust Matters
by Michael Green
John R. Moffett, the distinguished neuroscientist and managing editor of OPEDNEWS, has brought his considerable prestige to bear on the issue of whether the Twin Towers and WTC7 were destroyed by controlled demolition using the incendiary and sometimes explosive thermite as a key component. Unfortunately, he has done so with either malicious incompetence, or worse, a cynical deliberate determination to distort, conceal, and suppress the findings of a recently published scientific article, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” that dispositively proves the presence of unignited explosives in the WTC dust. Neither motivation on Dr. Moffett’s part obviously recommends him for his post at OPEDNEWS. I will first address Dr. Moffett’s smear http://www.opednews.com/articles/Was-it-Nanotech-Thermite–by-John-R-Mof…, which was promoted to OPEDNEWS headline status on 4/15/2009, then the importance of the thermitic dust. If you think that 911 isn’t your issue, you should pay close attention.
The evidence that first brought me around to considering 911 as a USG covert operation was the National Aeronautics and Science Administration’s (NASA’s) publication of a thermal survey taken September 16, 2001, that showed ground temperature hot spots of 1,100 and 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit. Such temperatures are far too high to be produced by an open-air hydrocarbon fire except in very short bursts, but certainly not as an enduring after-effect. Students of 911 have collected a vast array of evidence that temperatures at the WTC were generated far in excess of what normal hydrocarbon fires could produce. The evidence includes eyewitness testimony of molten iron or steel weeks after the event, videos of orange molten metal pouring from the South Tower minutes before its destruction, and microspheres of once-molten iron in the dust examined by the United States Geological Survey forensics team (without further comment or analysis!).
The importance of iron microspheres is simple. Iron melts around 2,800 Fahrenheit, which is about twice the highest temperature that an open-air fire could produce. A microsphere can only be produced by first melting iron, then dispersing the melted iron by some energetic means (like explosion) into an aerosol whose particles, influenced by the surface tension of the molten metal, form spheres as the smallest surface area required to contain any specified volume of matter. Once again, as with the NASA thermal survey, an intense source of energy other than the WTC fires is required to melt iron or steel, as even the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) admitted in its reports. The science is pretty simple; only its political consequences are complicated, and troubling.
Editor in chief of Open Chemical Physics Journal resigns after controversial article on 9/11
The editor in chief of the journal where recently the paper: “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” was published, resigned, claiming she wasn’t informed of the publication. She proceeds to provide not a single solid scientific rebuttal, only administrative bickering and personal political bias against, well.. inconvenient science. One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: “Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.”.
Strangely, her areas of research seem to contradict that. I’ll quote you an excerpt of her resume:
1990-1992: Chairperson on workshops related to the French Defense research.
1989-1992: Consultant at the Minister of Recherche concerning the National Defense 1989: Member of the “Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Européenne”.
1987-1988: Member of the ’“Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Nationale” (IHEDN)1984-1986: Member of National exam in ChemistryEDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERSHIP
2006: Accounts of Chemical Research, American Chemical Society.
Journal of experimental nanosciences, Publisher Taylor&Francis.
2002: Journal of Physical Chemistry, Board member, American Chemical Society.
1990-1994: Société Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs, SNPE, France (Literally translated: National Society of Powders and Explosives)
2001: Laboratoire des matériaux mésoscopiques et nanomètriques, LM2N.
1992-2000: Structure et réactivité des systèmes interfaciaux, SRI. (Literally translated: Structure and reactivity of interfacial systems)
Interesting. Firm ties with the French/European military industrial complex. Experience with explosives and nanotechnology. It’s reasonable to assume Ms. Pileni is familiar with nano-explosives. So Ms. Pileni’s contention that “the topic lies outside my field of expertise” is false. Why would a nanotechnology expert and former consultant for the SNPE not want to comment on a paper discussing nano-thermitic explosives? A paper which caused her to resign? Puzzling.
(Credit goes to DHS for first bringing this resignation to my attention in a comment on 911blogger. It’s being discussed at Randi** as well.)
Transcript from Visibility 9-11; A Basic Chemistry Lesson with Dr. Niels Harrit
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 with the oxygen of the atmosphere and the reaction develops heat. So there are two to party; there are two ingredients in the reaction and in this case there is the coal and the oxygen and when they react they develop heat. And the reaction means electrons are being moved basically that what it is. Chemistry is the transformation of matter; of stuff. It is basically the same reaction going on in the thermite, except the role played by the oxygen, is now played by rust. And the role played by coal is now played by aluminum. So it’s the same kind of reaction as ordinary combustion it’s just that there are two other actors on the scene. And these actors now comes as tiny particles. When I say tiny, it’s a relative matter because in the classical thermite, you have pulverized rust and you have pulverized aluminum but still the grains are large enough for you to see by eye. This is like what you call flour and sugar. When you make a classical thermite, and this is an old invention from 1893 made by a German chemist called Goldschmidt and he discovered when he mixed finely divided rust with finely divided aluminum and got the reaction going, which is not that easy, I can tell you that, I have done it myself, but once the reaction is going it develops a tremendous heat and this heat is much much bigger than when the campfire is burning because the actors are mixed on beforehand. In the campfire you have to renew the air, the oxygen for the wood or for the coal to burn. And if you, if it doesn’t get enough air it doesn’t burn very hot, but in the thermite, these two actors who are to react with each other are mixed on beforehand as two powders. But in the plain thermite, these powders are relatively course; we are from a millimeter down to 1/1000th of a millimeter. Now in nano thermite the grains, the particles is much smaller which means that the two actors, the two who have to react with each other are much much more finely divided and they can interact much more intimately and much faster. So the energy developed as heat is now developed so fast that we are approaching what you might call an explosive. You can even make it an explosive by mixing in other stuff and that is the key of the nano. This is the way you make the particles and when you make the particles so small you have the opportunity to mix in other stuff and it is this other stuff that makes it an explosive because in order to be an explosive you have to develop gasses. An explosive is working because it reacts so fast, not because there are terribly much energy but it develops an enormous pressure so you kinda knock over, whether it’s a piece of concrete or it’s a steel beam, you knock it over by force. But the thermite can do both. It depends of the composition of the thermite. It can either develop heat or it can be designed to work as explosive. It can also be, what you call a rocket propellant, what you call rocket fuel like the boosters on the, what you call the Space Shuttle. This is nano thermite. So this is a third option for a version or category of nano thermite which develop a lot of gasses but pretty slowly for the boosters to raise the Space Shuttle into space. But if this reaction is very fast, you get a very high pressure and that is an explosive. So the nano thermite concept has the whole potential and those who are making new explosives for the American military, in their advertisements they call these materials for explosives, the call them smaller, cheaper, and nastier. This is the explosives of the future, this is the munitions of the future, there is no doubt about this.
Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say
by Elaine Jarvik
Monday, April 6, 2009
Tiny red and gray chips found in the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center contain highly explosive materials — proof, according to a former BYU professor, that 9/11 is still a sinister mystery.
Physicist Steven E. Jones, who retired from Brigham Young University in 2006 after the school recoiled from the controversy surrounding his 9/11 theories, is one of nine authors on a paper published last week in the online, peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. Also listed as authors are BYU physics professor Jeffrey Farrer and a professor of nanochemistry at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.
For several years, Jones has theorized that pre-positioned explosives, not fires from jet fuel, caused the rapid, symmetrical collapse of the two World Trade Center buildings, plus the collapse of a third building, WTC-7.
The newest research, according to the journal authors, shows that dust from the collapsing towers contained a “nano-thermite” material that is highly explosive. Although the article draws no conclusions about the source and purpose of the explosives, Jones has previously supported a theory that the collapse of the WTC towers was part of a government conspiracy to ignore warnings about the 9/11 terrorists so that the attack would propel America to wage war against Afghanistan and Iraq.
The next step, Jones said in a phone interview on Monday, is for someone to investigate “who made the stuff and why it was there.”
A layer of dust lay over parts of Manhattan immediately following the collapse of the towers, and it was samples of this dust that Jones and fellow researchers requested in a 2006 paper, hoping to determine “the whole truth of the events of that day.” They eventually tested four samples they received from New Yorkers.
One sample was from a man who had swept up a handful of dust on the Brooklyn Bridge, where he was walking when the second tower fell. As the journal authors note, “It was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steel-cutting or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC-7, which fell hours later.”
Another man collected dust in his apartment, about five blocks from the World Trade Center, on the morning of Sept. 12. There was a layer about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry near an open window.
Red/gray chips, averaging in size between .2 and 3 mm, were found in all four dust samples. The chips were then analyzed using scanning electron microscopy and other high-tech tools.
The red layer of the chips, according to the researchers, contains a “highly energetic” form of thermite. While normal thermite (a mixture of finely granulated aluminum and an oxide of metal) can be incendiary, “super thermite” is explosive. He says there is no benign explanation for the thermite in the WTC dust.
Jones made headlines in 2005 when he argued that the rapid and symmetrical fall of the World Trade Center looked like the result of pre-positioned explosives. He argued that fires alone wouldn’t have been hot enough to crumble the buildings; and that even if struck by planes, the towers should have been strong enough to support the weight of the tops as they crumbled — unless they were leveled by explosives.
Essentially forced to retire, Jones says he is now paying for research out of his own pocket. He likens himself to Galileo and Newton, who stood by their consciences. “I would like to think I could stand up for the truth,” he says.
The dust study vindicates his earlier theories, Jones says, but he has mixed feelings about the implications. “As a young student said to me a while back: ‘It’s exciting from a scientific point of view, because things are now making sense. But I feel sad for my country.’?”
Original article here.
Visibility 9-11 continues our Special Report on the new research paper titled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe and features an interview with Danish chemist Dr. Niels H. Harrit. Dr. Harrit is an associate professor of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and is the author/or co-author of nearly 60 peer reviewed scientific papers. Dr. Harrit has also served on numerous occasions as a peer reviewer/referee for scientific papers written by others. My guest today is also a member of Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice and actively tours Denmark lecturing on his discoveries into the 9-11 cover-up.
Our talk today with Dr. Harrit features an in-depth discussion on a new paper which has been formally published and peer reviewed by The Open Chemical Physics Journal titled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. In this revolutionary new research paper, discoveries made in the World Trade Center Dust, particularly the red/gray bi-layered chips, are examined in great detail and include evidence of the thermite fingerprint at every juncture.
The research paper ends with this sentence, which pulls no punches when it comes to what the authors believe these red/gray chips to be:
“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.”
Dr. Steven E. Jones, co-author of the paper writes:
“In short, the paper explodes the official story that âno evidenceâ exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings.” The red/gray chips are the “loaded gun” of 9-11.
Read this important paper directly at The Open Chemical Physics Journal website here.
Find links to the research paper, previous episodes of this special report, and watch for other planned interviews on this topic at our Visibility 9-11 Special Report, The Thermite Fingerprint; The Loaded Gun of 9-11.
Direct download: visibility911_dr_harrit.mp3
What you need to know about “Peer-review”
by Dr. Steven E. Jones
(Extra back-up for the claims made have been added in the form of hyperlinks)…
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.
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 recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention — and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers — who were selected by the editor(s) — approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.
Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as “Oh, it’s just paint” or “the aluminum is bound up in kaolin.” We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.
Here’s what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.
So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, “is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?” If not, you can and should say — “I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. ”
BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the “Fourteen Points” paper or the “Environmental Anomalies” papers we published last year.
IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are “vanity publications” (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) — then why don’t the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.
Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).
We say that this paper has the “imprimatur of peer-review”. That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings… We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO…