Upcoming Sydney Conference to Demonstrate the Three Building Collapses on 9/11 Were a Controlled Demolition.

Sydney, Australia, September 14, 2009 – Truth Action Australia and 911oz.com will host an International Conference called “The Hard Evidence” to critically examine the three building Collapses in New York on September 11, 2001. The official explanation of these building collapse 1, 2 and 7 of the World Trade Center Complex have been attributed primarily to fire damage causing a “global collapse” which independent scientific research has found an entirely insufficient explanation. A group of Architects and Engineers approaching one thousand members is demanding a new investigation of these building collapses based on hard physical evidence, witness testimony, video evidence and strict structural analysis using the original blueprints.

The one day event will be comprised of two presentations and an expert panel discussion inviting members of the press and public to ask hard technical questions of the relevant experts. The morning lecture will be from experienced Architect Richard Gage AIA representing “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” presenting “9/11: Blueprint for Truth – The Architecture of Destruction”. The afternoon presentation will be from Steven Jones PH.D presenting research based on his scientific team’s recent published findings asking “What is Nanothermite a High-tech Explosive Material Doing in the Dust from WTC Building Collapses on 9/11?” A late afternoon Panel discussion will follow comprised of highly qualified experts including Paul Mason Structural Engineer, Chemist Dr Frank Legge and Dr David Leifer a Senior Lecturer in Architecture at Sydney University.

Read the rest of this entry »

We All Fall Down
After 9/11, BYU prof. Steven Jones’ teaching career imploded just like the twin towers, but he still insists planes were not to blame.
By Eric S. Peterson
Salt Lake City Weekly

The equation for free fall is pretty basic. Drop anything—from a dime to a rock—from a tall building, for example, and once that object hits an acceleration of 9.8 meters per second squared, it’s free falling. This equation applies to everything, even to buildings.

In the fall of 2005, Brigham Young University professor Steven Jones presented this simple principle in a BYU campus auditorium packed with hundreds of people to illustrate how several of the World Trade Center towers fell too quickly on Sept. 11, 2001, to have only been hit by planes. To reach free-fall speed, Jones explained, the building’s floor supports would have needed to be blown apart. In other words, the carnage of 9/11 would have required another catalyst of destruction beyond hijacked planes—an explosive to cause the buildings to implode.

The discussion ran two hours and only ended because students began arriving for a class to be held in the room. Before concluding, Jones asked if anyone was not convinced more investigation was needed. Only one professor raised his hand. “And he tracked me down the next day on campus and told me I changed his mind,” Jones says.

Jones’ speech began his rise as an outspoken skeptic of the official 9/11 report. But, it was also the beginning of the end for his career as a college professor.

Jones and his colleagues theorized that a military-grade explosive called nano-thermite sliced through the building supports and brought down the buildings. Recently, they bolstered their theory with analysis of a mysterious powder collected from around New York City, a powder they asserted in the April 2009 Open Chemical Physics Journal was nano-thermite.

If the theory sounds like bad science fiction, it is because a similar explosive substance, “nanomite,” was used by Cobra (the bad guys) in this summer’s over-the-top action movie, G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra. In the movie, Cobra uses nanomite to disintegrate buildings and national monuments in a cloud of green dust.

Nano-thermite, however, is no green powder from comic book fiction—it’s actually a red-chip substance that Jones and his researchers have matched specifically to an explosive residue using electron microscopy.

But before Jones recent red-chip research came to fruition, he continued to speak frankly about other pieces of the puzzle: the reported sounds of explosions on 9/11, molten steel at the site, steel beams shooting out horizontally like missiles from the buildings, and the sloppy federal explanations about what happened at World Trade Center 7, the third building that collapsed and the only one that did so without being hit by any planes.

Jones now casually rattles off the official testimony that claimed air defenses were called off and describes suspicious stock deals that netted mysterious individuals billions of dollars in profits from the 9/11 disaster.

“The problem in this country is that we accept one conspiracy theory,” Jones says. “That it was Al Qaeda—that’s the official conspiracy theory. OK, but it doesn’t explain the lack of air defenses that day, it doesn’t explain why World Trade Center 7 came down the way it did, and it doesn’t explain the billions made off these extremely suspicious stock trades. So, there really is a lot of evidence for foul play,” the professor says matter of factly.

Beyond the figures and formulas, perhaps Jones’ most incendiary conclusion is that the explosions were the result of an inside job. Ironically, Jones says his theory is supported by Occam’s razor: the principle that states where there are multiple competing theories, the simplest one is better. For Jones, the simplest theory is that the U.S. government conspired to commit terror on its own citizens and kill thousands in the process. The storm Jones has stirred up speaking out on 9/11 eventually forced him, in 2006, into early retirement from BYU.

Down but not out, the soft-spoken professor continues his controversial research, having created a peerreviewed journal for multidisciplinary 9/11 research. He continues to call for a complete investigation into the events of 9/11. Looking to explain this generation’s Day of Infamy, Jones fights to retain his credibility while fending off criticism from those more-or-less in his own camp for being dismissive of their 9/11 theories—laser beam attacks and holographic planes—all while reconciling his faith with his own controversial work.

Some see the exiled BYU professor as the voice of dissent against the greatest cover-up in American history.  Others see a reckless professor with a messiah complex, tilting at windmills that just aren’t there.

Read the rest of this entry »

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say
by Elaine Jarvik
Deseret News
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.

Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say
by Elaine Jarvik
Deseret News

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.

online casinoPhysicist 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.

What you need to know about “Peer-review”
by Dr. Steven E. Jones
911blogger.com

(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…

With the advent of the discoveries surrounding the 9/11/01 nano-thermite evidence, along with what is about to come down the pike, I decided to do a cursory layman study of “nanotechnology”.

One nanometer (nm) is one billionth, or 10-9, of a meter. It takes about 3-10 atoms to span the length of a nanometer. 1 nanometer = 1,000 microns (µm) (micrometers). A red blood cell is 7 microns in diameter. A bacterium might be 200 nanometers in length.

This 10 minute video gives an excellent overview of nanotechnology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4CjZ-OkGDs

Nano-aluminum is burned in this 5 minute video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWvhthVsVDs taken from http://www.qsinano.com/index.php

Nano-Science and nanotechnology is an exploding field, expanding almost exponentially. The resulting products, applications, and developments hold much promise in our future. There are even instructions on how some homemade nanoparticles can be made? http://opensourcenano.net/projects/project1/ & http://www.bmbf.de/pub/nanoparticles_small_things_big_effects.pdf The proliferation of viable, valuable products resulting from this technology could potentially bring a new, true wealth to the people of this planet. Hopefully, enlightenment will coincide with this era. “9/11 Truth” is pertinent towards this enlightenment.

Kevin Ryan has repeatedly been discussing some of the ongoing research into the nano-composites found in the World Trade Center dust.

I should mention that there are some startling revelations revealed in some of these interviews (e.g. the floors of the WTC Buildings which had upgrades.)
http://www.911blogger.com/node/18935
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16945

In this interview ( http://www.911blogger.com/node/19377 ) , Kevin mentions a paper coming down the pike:
“…The new paper that I mentioned is much more conclusive than anything we’ve published before….”
“…we can do much, in conjunction with the science, to zero in on the culprits by considering the intersection of three paths. That is, 1- who had access to such technologies at the time that these explosives were likely to have been installed, 2- who had access to these highly secure buildings, and 3- who was involved in the cover-up investigations that followed? If we examine that short list and consider motives, I think we’ll find those who actually committed the crimes of 9/11.”

Published in a “mainstream” journal, The Environmentalist, is a paper by Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones (August 4th, 2008) which cleverly brings to light these nano-composites: “Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials”. http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.html

Kevin also writes an article entitled: “The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites” http://911review.com/articles/ryan/nist_thermite_connection.html
These articles and links can be found at “Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice” http://stj911.com/ and “Journal of 9/11 Studies” http://www.journalof911studies.com/

In December 2007, Professor Steven E. Jones gives a presentation of his discoveries regarding the red-gray chips. 7 minute video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4186920967571123147&hl=en

Jones gives some more information in this 2 minute video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NnpEteuUE8

Richard Gage of “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth”. AE911Truth.org (http://www.ae911truth.org/ ) brings up the nano-thermite evidence in their newest DVD video presentation: “9/11: Blueprint for Truth — The Architecture of Destruction”.

Author Griffin calls for formation of truth and reconciliation commission to heal wounds of 9-11

By Peter Duveen

PETER’S NEW YORK, Nov. 19, 2008–One of the major critics of the U.S. government’s version of the events of September 11, 2001 is calling for the formation of a “truth and reconciliation commission” to get to the bottom of the happenings of that day.

David Ray Griffin, author of seven books on 9-11, including his latest, “A New Pearl Harbor Revisited,” all of which are critical of the government’s 9-11 investigations, said on the Alex Jones radio program today that he believed the administration of incoming U.S. President Barack Obama will be more open to the establishment of such a commission. “With a new administration…there is really a chance” that there could be a new 9-11 investigation, Griffin said. Griffin described Obama as “very bright,” with a strong moral compass and an appreciation of the U.S. constitution. “He and his people will be open to evidence” that contradicts government accounts, Griffin said. He also said that Obama was likely to embrace the idea of forgiveness that would be essential for a truth and reconciliation commission. “He’s willing to let bygones be bygones,” said Griffin.

Similar commissions have been established in countries that have been beset by corruption and the human tragedy it generates. Such a body was established, for example, by the South African government in the 1990s, and offered amnesty to those who freely confessed to committing heinous crimes during the Apartheid regime. Confessions by police and other groups participating in atrocities against black citizens in the white-dominated South African government eventually revealed the scope and character of abuses.

Griffin and other critics of the U.S. government’s 9-11 storyline believe that the events of that day were far more likely to have been carried out by those high in government circles than by the rag tag team of 19 “hijackers” the government alleges took control of four commercial airliners, plunging two of them into each of the twin towers of New York City’s World Trade Center and a third into the Pentagon in northern Virginia. A fourth airliner is said to have crashed in a field in Pennsylvania with military aircraft in hot pursuit. The government has refused to release to investigators information linking any of the commercial flights with serial numbers of recovered wreckage, fueling doubts that the commercial airliners the government claims to have been used by the hijackers were in all instances the ones that crashed on that day.

Read the rest of this entry »

9/11 theorist not curtailing his research
By Tad Walch
Deseret News
Saturday, May 3, 2008

Sixteen months ago, Brigham Young University and Steven Jones parted ways, but he said this week he isn’t bitter about the academic divorce.

He certainly hasn’t curtailed his volatile research on the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

(Yes, three towers fell, not just two. If you didn’t know that, Jones is particularly interested in reaching you with his message that some other group, in addition to al-Qaida, likely contributed to the collapses.)

In fact, Jones is the lead author of a paper on the collapses published April 18 in a civil engineering journal.

The journal article does not list his past tie to BYU, and that’s a big Mission Accomplished for university leaders, who felt they acted to protect BYU’s reputation when they worked out a retirement package with Jones and he left at the end of 2006.

But Jones is sharing a cramped BYU office with some professors. He also does research in a BYU lab as an outside user with a student who works with him.

Most importantly, he is preparing several more papers that, if they pass peer review and are published, will give him the peace of mind that his case reached the public.

Jones was energized in November when he and others received a response from the national lab charged by Congress to determine why and how the towers collapsed. The letter contained the following phrase:

“We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”

“That,” Jones said, “really was progress. It made me believe we could talk with them.”

It is striking. After producing a 10,000-page report, the National Institute of Standards and Technology can’t explain the collapse. And on its Web site, NIST clearly states that nowhere in its report did it say that steel in the Twin Towers melted due to fires. In fact, the fires reached only 1,000 degrees Celsius. Steel melts at 1,500 degrees Celsius.

Meanwhile, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has said that its best hypothesis for the fall of the third tower, WTC 7 — diesel fuel stored in the building caused fires that collapsed the building — has a “low probability” of being correct.

At the time of his separation with BYU, which he admitted was painful, Jones found himself burned by his association with a loose confederation of 9/11 truth-seekers, some of them clearly kooky conspiracy theorists, and by some of his own statements.

Now, he and a number of scientific colleagues are taking a more cautious, mainstream approach.

His new peer-reviewed paper in the Open Civil Engineering Journal doesn’t rip NIST or FEMA or the government. It does just the opposite. It lays out 14 points of agreement Jones and his colleagues have with the official government reports.

“We’re getting to a higher level of discussion with this paper,” Jones said.

The open paper can be found for free on the Web at www.bentham.org.

So what does Jones think happened?

Jones wants NIST to look at new evidence he found in Ground Zero dust samples since leaving BYU. The dust is full of iron-rich spheres and red-gray chips with the chemical signatures of high-tech cutter-charge explosives that he said could explain the collapsed towers. The spheres come from molten metal that Jones said could be caused by cutter charges.

“It’s like when you spray water into the air, you get droplets,” Jones said. “These spheres are evidence of extremely high temperatures beyond what the fires could have reached.”

He’s offered samples to NIST and invited NIST to visit one of his group’s labs. A NIST spokesman has said that would be a waste of taxpayer dollars, though Jones said the cost would be less than $5,000.

Jones is cautious with money himself. He and his wife are selling off their real-estate investments to make ends meet, but he said they are comfortable and about to move to Sanpete County.

“I haven’t profited a penny off this,” he said. “I don’t want to, and I’ve been careful not to. I’m concerned about the country, and I’m worried the truth is being covered up here.”

He’s careful not to speculate about a cover-up, though he said the growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq has made many more people receptive to his research.

Would it really hurt the people at NIST to talk to him once?

Original article here.

Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year, we have two papers which have passed peer-review and have been accepted for publication. One of these was published TODAY! In science, we say that we have “published in the literature,” a major step in a nascent line of scientific inquiry.

And many thanks to the editors for their courage and adherence to science in allowing us to follow the evidence and publish in their journal. (Indeed, expressions of thanks along these lines to the editors will be appreciated, as they will probably get a few letters chastising them… )

The paper is here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm (our paper is listed on top at the moment, the most recently entered paper); or go here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm
(Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)

Yes, it is available on-line FOR FREE, since this is an “open e-journal.” TOCEJ = The Open Civil Engineering Journal. You may download the paper and make copies to give to local professors and engineers (hint, hint). That’s one reason this particular journal was chosen — open access, free to download and make copies. What do Profs/Engineers say about it — let us know would you?

In this Letter, we emphasize “points of agreement” with FEMA and NIST, seeking to build bridges for further communications. Of course, we will send a copy to NIST for their comment and hopefully open a public discussion on these crucial evidences and analyses. Note the title – but then read more—the paper only six pages long.

Download the .pdf file here.

*******************************************************************************************************

Read the rest of this entry »

This week Visibility 9-11 welcomes back to the program, PhD Physicist Steven E. Jones for an update on his ongoing research into clues hidden in the 9-11 dust. This powerful evidence, all of which is mentioned in a new paper at the Journal of 9-11 Studies titled Extremely high temperatures during the WTC destruction and was found in numerous samples of 9-11 dust collected from different locations around the WTC site. This research includes scientific evidence relating to iron-rich micro spheres, silicate spherules, shiny metallic and semi-transparent silicate-rich spherules, Molybdenum spherule, and bi-layered chips, red on one side and dark grey on the other, which Dr. Jones suspects and speculates to be unexploded Super Thermite, also known as Nano-Thermite. Research on the bi-layered chips is thus far not conclusive but research is ongoing.

Dr. Jones is a co-founder of Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice and co-founder and editor at the Journal of 9-11 Studies.

Intermission music by Experience KEF.

Ending music by Three Shoes Posse.

Get this episode here.

Unraveling Of The Official 911 Story Continues
By Mark H. Gaffney
2-22-8

Humpty-Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty-Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
couldn’t put Humpty together again.

Today in America, we are witness to a great unraveling, the likes of which we have never seen before. There are no historical precedents. For many months now the official narrative about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on America has been coming apart, and I mean: at the seams. The official story about that terrible day is disintegrating. The trend shows no sign of abating and in recent weeks it even appears to have accelerated. At the present rate, soon there will be nothing left of the official version of events but a discordant echo and a series of extremely rude after shocks.

Is our nation prepared to face those rude shocks?

The unraveling began within weeks of the release of the 9/11 Commission Report (in July 2004) with the shocking revelation that members of the 9/11 commission were convinced that government officials, including NORAD generals, had deceived them during the investigation­­­in essence, had lied to their faces during the hearings.[1] According to the Washington Post the members of the commission vented their frustrations at a special meeting in the summer of 2004. The panel even considered referring the matter to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation.

The unraveling continued in 2006 with the release of a follow-up volume, Without Precedent, authored by the two men who had co-chaired the commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. The men had come under increasing fire ever since the release of their final report for presiding over what many now believe was a failed investigation. Stung by so much criticism, Kean and Hamilton felt the need to explain (and defend) themselves. The gist of their 2006 book is easily summarized. They write: “We were set up to fail.”

Read the rest of this entry »

The Second Annual Boston Tea Party and Conference for 9/11 Truth! – Scientists & Citizens Speak Out!

Conference – Saturday December 15

The weekend’s events will kick off with a day-long conference on Saturday December 15 at Boston’s historic Faneuil Hall and is entitled, “The Destruction of World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7: A Case for Controlled Demolition.” In this scientific look at the collapses, a panel of four well-known and credentialed science and engineering professionals will present the case that the government’s theories could not possibly be true and that most of the evidence points to the one theory that’s been completely avoided by the government and the media – controlled demolition.

The Truth Movement got a huge boost in 2007 when California architect Richard Gage, AIA, exploded onto the scene with “Architects and Engineers for Truth” (AE911Truth). Opening the presentations on Saturday morning at one of America’s most famous meeting halls, Gage will be joined by long-time 9/11 researcher and former BYU physics professor Dr. Steven Jones, Underwriters Laboratories whistleblower Kevin Ryan, and new to the scene, Dr. Joel Hirschhorn, who in September 2007 came out with an unequivocal endorsement of the work of AE911Truth. Dr. Hirschhorn is formerly a professor of Metallurgy at the University of Wisconsin and was a senior staff member at the US Congressional Office of Technology Assessment from 1978 to 1991, testifying more than 50 times before congress on scientific issues. He is the author of several books, including, “Delusional Democracy: Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government.” We enthusiastically welcome Dr. Hirschhorn to the growing list of distinguished scientists and true patriots who are willing to step forward and speak out on the 9/11 cover-up. The Conference will conclude with a panel discussion and Q&A session.

Volunteer activists from across New England are currently working hard on a campaign to impress upon the academic, architectural and engineering communities near Boston, the need for honesty in dealing with the scientific data related to the horrific crime on September 11. Huge efforts are being made to invite as many of these academics and professionals as possible to the Conference, to judge for themselves where the scientific evidence points. Your support of this event makes that possible. For information on the Conference and how to purchase tickets, visit http://boston911conference.eventbrite.com.

Our Speakers:

Joel S. Hirshhorn, Ph.D.
Former Professor, Metallurgical Engineering University of Wisconsin
Former Senior Staff Member – Congressional Office of Technology

Steven Jones, Ph.D.
Former Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University

Richard Gage, AIA Architect
Founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, with 20 years of experience designing fireproofed, steel-framed buildings

Kevin Ryan, BS Chem
Certified Quality Engineer, Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories

For more information, click here.