De grote 9/11 topic

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door matrixremover

Hoe kan je nu iets wat ZO belangrijk is zo negeren en als onzin bestempelen?
Kan jij mischien de reikwijdte niet vatten van deze conspiracy?
of DURF je de reikwijdte niet te vatten? dat kan natuurlijk ook.

Om het komplot-idee staande te houden is het inderdaad noodzakelijk de reikwijdte en het aantal betrokkenen drastisch te vergroten.
Probleem is dat het komplot-idee aan de basis al direct niet klopt (puur de gebeurtenissen op de dag zelf)

[Big Slick]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Het is de meerderheid van de mensen die 9/11 niet als inside job zien. Dat zijn volgens u de niet normale mensen?

U draait de zaken een beetje om.
Als je de topics rond 9/11 doorleest, merk je dat meestal de verdedigers van de officiele theorie de 'anderen' als niet normaal bestempelen. Je moet eens zien wat de critcici van de officiele theorie allemaal naar hun hoofd geslingerd krijgen.
Anyway, er is zoals u stelt nog steeds een meerderheid die de officiele theorie gelooft. Maar kijk eens na hoé veel er ondertussen zijn die die theorie niet geloven. En kijk niet enkel naar het aantal, maar tevens naar de reputatie van velen onder hen.
Is het dan realistisch om al deze mensen als "niet normaal" (lees:conspracynuts) te bestempelen?

[Antoooon]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Om het komplot-idee staande te houden is het inderdaad noodzakelijk de reikwijdte en het aantal betrokkenen drastisch te vergroten.
Probleem is dat het komplot-idee aan de basis al direct niet klopt (puur de gebeurtenissen op de dag zelf)

zo zo en waarom dan wel niet?

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Big Slick

U draait de zaken een beetje om.
Als je de topics rond 9/11 doorleest, merk je dat meestal de verdedigers van de officiele theorie de 'anderen' als niet normaal bestempelen. Je moet eens zien wat de critcici van de officiele theorie allemaal naar hun hoofd geslingerd krijgen.
Anyway, er is zoals u stelt nog steeds een meerderheid die de officiele theorie gelooft. Maar kijk eens na hoé veel er ondertussen zijn die die theorie niet geloven. En kijk niet enkel naar het aantal, maar tevens naar de reputatie van velen onder hen.
Is het dan realistisch om al deze mensen als "niet normaal" (lees:conspracynuts) te bestempelen?

misschien ligt het wel aan wat de truthers hier allemaal geponeerd hebben om hun gelijk te halen: nukes,global hawks ipv vliegtuigen, drones, sci fi explosieven, enz enz
en vooral het feit om deze conspiracy te doen lukken tienduizenden medeplichtigen...
al datgene dat word gedebunked door specialisten ter zake verdwijnt een tijdje om later gewoon weer op te duiken...

[Micele]

WTC 7 CD nog eens:

Als FEMA en NIST niet naar de oorzaak mogen/willen zoeken, test men het toch gewoon eens uit.

9/11 Experiments: The Mysterious Eutectic Steel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDF...layer_embedded

Bron: http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-1...eutectic-steel
Submitted by Jon Cole on Tue, 07/13/2010 - 10:35am

Vergelijk de ongeschonden -kaarsrechte- stalen kolom na de test eens met deze gevonden kolom van WTC7...:


enkele reacties op de video:

Wonderful! Just Wonderful Video!
What a great idea! Nice experiment! Leaves these NIST clowns no where to hide..............we should email like ten thousand copies of this video to their offices. How much did their report cost? Goes to show you don't always get what you pay for.....then again maybe you do!
Submitted by peacefulwarrior on Tue, 07/13/2010 - 5:23pm.
»
Login to post comments5 points Excellent
Excellent. Clear. Concise. Direct. Logically flawless. Another home run video from Jon Cole.
Submitted by ConcernedCitizen on Tue, 07/13/2010 - 5:32pm.
»
Login to post comments7 points Superb !!
Well constructed and presented. OK, us non-scientist types need to get this amo distributed far and wide!!
Submitted by dave mann on Tue, 07/13/2010 - 5:35pm.
»
Login to post comments5 points Entertaining And Informative
Excellent production.
Submitted by penguin on Tue, 07/13/2010 - 6:00pm.
»
Login to post comments7 points Nice experiment Jon
Thanks for all your hard work!
Submitted by Kevin Ryan on Tue, 07/13/2010 - 6:03pm.
»
Login to post comments7 points Good work Jon. Your critics
Good work Jon. Your critics may suggest that you did not use enough gypsum, diesel and plastic, but I think you made your point. Contact me if you want to do this experiment with thermate.
Submitted by John_Parulis on Tue, 07/13/2010 - 6:04pm.
»
Login to post comments6 points Steve Jones' experiment
Steven Jones mentioned experiments that he had done with thermate on steel previously at 911blogger:

"I (with colleagues) have done the experiment with thermite + sulfur (often called "thermate") acting on a piece of WTC steel. In fact, I did the experiment with BBC filming it! Then we looked at the steel, including use of electron microscopy, and found the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al. in WTC 7 steel.

OTOH, I know of no expt done to test whether gypsum and heat would have this effect -- I would be VERY surprised, as the sulfur in gypsum is not elemental Sulfur, but is bound as a sulfate (very difficult to reduce to suflur.) We should do the latter experiment to rule out such nonsense. If you can provide direct quotes from the BBC program on this point, it may prove useful in a research note on the subject.

Meanwhile, for BBC to neglect our experimental replication of the observed corrosion, using thermite + sulfur, is rather remarkable in itself, seeing that they filmed one of our experiments, as I distinctly recall."

Gypsum is calcium sulfate dihydrate, not elemental sulfur. To break gypsum down into elemental sulfur requires a rather involved industrial process.

Now I wonder why NIST, which investigated WTC7 for about 6 years, could not bring themselves to do such a simple experiment?
Submitted by tanabear on Tue, 07/13/2010 - 7:08pm.
»
Login to post comments6 points WoW!
5 stars!
Submitted by TomT on Tue, 07/13/2010 - 7:49pm.
»
Login to post comments4 points Clear and Concise
This experiment is elegant. I particularly like the sense of humor - the burning of old bank records......Great job, Jon.
Submitted by marzi on Tue, 07/13/2010 - 8:05pm.
»
Login to post comments4 points Jon seems to get all the points in there
and I am glad that he pointed out that there was a large SEC office on the 12th and 13th floors of WTC 7 which just happened to contain large Enron and Worldcom case files which just happened to be lost when WTC 7 collapsed, as well as the incredible coincidence that this was where the largest fires were located.

Jon, this is another well done video documenting a well planned and executed physical experiment, which along with your other videos shows the present official story on how those three buildings came down in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 to be nothing but in General Norman Schwarzkopf's words "bovine scatalogy".
Submitted by Tony Szamboti on Wed, 07/14/2010 - 6:35am.
»
Login to post comments3 points Superb Video! Excellent work.
Superb Video! Excellent work.
Submitted by Jerm on Tue, 07/13/2010 - 9:23pm.
»
Login to post comments4 points So glad you did this
So glad you did this experiment! I had been wanting to do this for a while, but didn't have the means. The experiment that you laid out was very well done and the results were very expected. How anyone can suggest that gypsum, which is used in practically every building, would cause sulfidation of steel causing gaping holes and thinning in an ordinary office fire, is beyond me. But then again, 911 was a day a firsts.
... ]

meer uitleg, met temperaturen en foto´s:

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/htmp...Moltenmax.html



C.2 Sample 1 (From WTC 7)
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration. In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3.



Evidence of a severe high temperature readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.
...]

[Dixie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnYBX...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMr3ZSL6l-4

[Micele]

http://forum.politics.be/showpost.ph...ostcount=16065

[atmosphere]

De aanwezigheid van doorgeroest staal toont aan dat er sprake was van controlled demolition ??

In de torens en wtc 7 bevonden zich vele enorme accus , als onderdeel van een UPS(undepended power supply) op de zogeheten mechanical floors . In accus zit zwavelzuur (H2SO4), het reageert heftig met ijzer vooral wanneer de temperatuur hoog is . Dit kan dus ook de veroorzaker van heftige oxidatie zijn.

Voor de rest is het zo dat elementair zwavel bij tempersturen ver onder de 1000 graden al onmiddelijk verdampt en/of heftig met vanalles reageert om vervolgens zwavel verbindinge te vormen . In het Fema report wordt nergens gezegd dat er elementair zwavel is gevonden / aangetroffen.

bij verbranding van thermiet met zwavel blijft er ook helemaal geen elementair zwavel over . De hele zogenaamde bevindingen slaan dus nergens op.

[atmosphere]

[quote=Big Slick;4868512]U draait de zaken een beetje om.
Als je de topics rond 9/11 doorleest, merk je dat meestal de verdedigers van de officiele theorie de 'anderen' als niet normaal bestempelen. Je moet eens zien wat de critcici van de officiele theorie allemaal naar hun hoofd geslingerd krijgen. [quote] U maakt geen onderscheid tussen kritisch zijn en zeker weten dat er sprake was van controlled demolotion .

Anyway, er is zoals u stelt nog steeds een meerderheid die de officiele theorie gelooft. Maar kijk eens na hoé veel er ondertussen zijn die die theorie niet geloven. En kijk niet enkel naar het aantal, maar tevens naar de reputatie van velen onder hen.

Heb ik gedaan ,en steeds blijken deze lieden buiten hun vakgebied oordelen.


Niet geloven in de officiële theorie is niet hetzelfde als denken dat er explosieven in de torens zaten en er raketten het Pentagon invlogen.

Is het dan realistisch om al deze mensen als "niet normaal" (lees:conspracynuts) te bestempelen?

De inhoud die deze lieden brengen is simpelweg totaal onjuist . Ik vraag me dan ook af , geloven ze die onzin nu zelf ? of hebben ze andere redenen om hun claims naar buiten te brengen?

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Antoooon

zo zo en waarom dan wel niet?

voor een antwoord op die vraag moeten alle individuele theoriën stuk voor stuk worden doorgenomen.

Neem die video over WTC 7 , deze begint al direct met "WTC 7 stortte in minder dan 6 seconden in" Deze claim is al direct totaal onjuist maar vormt wel de basis van hun verdere betoog .

Of het idee dat er plassen van gesmolten STAAL onder de gebouwen lagen, terwijl aluminium ook volop in het puin aanwezig was (heeft veel lager smeltpunt). En dat terwijl er na controlled demolitions juist nooit gesmolten staal achter blijft.

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Of het idee dat er plassen van gesmolten STAAL onder de gebouwen lagen, terwijl aluminium ook volop in het puin aanwezig was (heeft veel lager smeltpunt).

ook volop aluminium, onder WTC 7 ook welk vliegtuig ofzo ?

Welke kleur heeft gesmolten aluminium ?
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/200...flow-from.html

De hoogste temperaturen na 5 dagen werden onder WTC2 (747°C) en WTC7(727°C) gemeten...
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/htmp.../therma3bo.jpg

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

En dat terwijl er na controlled demolitions juist nooit gesmolten staal achter blijft.

Ènkel met klassieke springstoffen inderdaad niet.

Maar nu waren er andere stoffen gebruikt en andere stoffen gevonden...

Luister nu eens naar wat de professor zegt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6...eature=related

Red thermite chips gevonden...


De uitleg over de gevonden thermite chips, door één van de 9 onderzoekers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irOj1QYjVvc

Niels Harrit presenting evidence for nano-thermite in WTC, on GoodMorning Denmark ( English Subs )

Bril opzetten indien nodig a.u.b.

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Voor de rest is het zo dat elementair zwavel bij tempersturen ver onder de 1000 graden al onmiddelijk verdampt en/of heftig met vanalles reageert om vervolgens zwavel verbindinge te vormen . In het Fema report wordt nergens gezegd dat er elementair zwavel is gevonden / aangetroffen.

En dan ? Waarom elementair, moet daar puur ontgonnen zwavelerts liggen of zo ? Welke mijn ?
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwavel

Maar er is wel zwavel gevonden.

bij verbranding van thermiet met zwavel blijft er ook helemaal geen elementair zwavel over . De hele zogenaamde bevindingen slaan dus nergens op

Maar wel zwavel.

Met zinsverdraaingen ga je er niet komen.
Naturlijk gaat men na het "instorten" van een stalen gebouw - met na 5 dagen nog een hitte van 727°C - geen elementair zwavel meer vinden maar wel zwavel in andere vormen.

Fema heeft geen duidelijke verklaring voor het gevonden zwavel, ze zoeken ook niet verder, het is een "very unusual event". A detailed study is needed for the phenomonon... bla bla... to existed steel structures exposed ... to severe.. and long-burned fires.

Bron FEMA (alweer):

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf
......C6 Suggestions for future Research
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. .......

En lees vooral de ...... in de link, ik ga niet alles overpennen.

9 onderzoekers hebben wel een logische verklaring gevonden in de gevonden "nano-thermite" en getoond in een wetenschappelijk rapport. Maar dat negeer je hé.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irOj1QYjVvc

Niels Harrit and 8 other scientists found nano-thermite in the dust from the World Trade Center.

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

En dan ? Waarom elementair, moet daar puur ontgonnen zwavelerts liggen of zo ? Welke mijn ?
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwavel

Ik spreek gewoon over het element Zwavel , welke niet in binding is gegaan met andere elementen. Vandaar "elementair"

Met zinsverdraaingen ga je er niet komen.
Naturlijk gaat men na het "instorten" van een stalen gebouw - met na 5 dagen nog een hitte van 727°C - geen elementair zwavel meer vinden maar wel zwavel in andere vormen.

precies

Fema heeft geen duidelijke verklaring voor het gevonden zwavel, ze zoeken ook niet verder, het is een "very unusual event". A detailed study is needed for the phenomonon... bla bla... to existed steel structures exposed ... to severe.. and long-burned fires.

Bron FEMA (alweer):

Als ze geen duidelijke verklaring hebben we daar dus juist niets aan !! het geeft geen antwoorden .

En lees vooral de ...... in de link, ik ga niet alles overpennen.

9 onderzoekers hebben wel een logische verklaring gevonden in de gevonden "nano-thermite" en getoond in een wetenschappelijk rapport. Maar dat negeer je hé.

Dat is totaal geen wetenschappelijk rapport , en ik heb dat rapport al vaker besproken hier en dus zeker niet genegeert.

Het meest stomzinnige van dit hele verhaal is wel het idee dat al die warmte afkomstig is van thermiet dat op 9/11 zelf is afgegaan . En maanden later nog warm is .

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

ook volop aluminium, onder WTC 7 ook welk vliegtuig ofzo ?

Welke kleur heeft gesmolten aluminium ?
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/200...flow-from.html

Weer zo'n klassiek fabeltje !! totale onkunde
Gesmolten aluminium kan net zo goed roodgloeiend zijn ! Dat heb ik zelf vaak genoeg gezien (aluminium ovens vlakbij de kerncentrale te Borselle)

De hoogste temperaturen na 5 dagen werden onder WTC2 (747°C) en WTC7(727°C) gemeten...
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/htmp.../therma3bo.jpg

Is nog niet eens zo warm voor een brandende puinhoop.

Ènkel met klassieke springstoffen inderdaad niet.

Maar nu waren er andere stoffen gebruikt en andere stoffen gevonden...

Thermiet is totaal ongeschikt als materiaal voor gecontroleerde sloop .
Thermiet is bovendien ook geen explosief, of beter gezegt het valt niet onder de categorie "high explosives" . Het is een mengsel van stoffen welke geen detonatie reactie geven , ze defragleren slechts. Dit betekend een dat ze vrij traag met elkaar reageren ( onder vorming van heeeel veeel licht !!)

Luister nu eens naar wat de professor zegt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6...eature=related

Red thermite chips gevonden...


De uitleg over de gevonden thermite chips, door één van de 9 onderzoekers:


Bril opzetten indien nodig a.u.b.

die chips bestaan uit niets meer dan een laagje coating (verf) waar Ijzer(3)oxide in zit, en een laagje aluminium. Oxidatie en roestwerende coatings bevatten vaak Fe2O3

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Weer zo'n klassiek fabeltje !! totale onkunde
Gesmolten aluminium kan net zo goed roodgloeiend zijn ! Dat heb ik zelf vaak genoeg gezien (aluminium ovens vlakbij de kerncentrale te Borselle)

Heb je een link of een filmpje van roodgloeiende gesmolten - zuiver- aluminium ?

Is nog niet eens zo warm voor een brandende puinhoop.

Gij vindt dat dus normaal na 5 dagen ?

Hoe is het staal dan gesmolten bij de zogezegde geschatte temperaturen (FEMA) tot 1000 ° C ?
En hoe is het staal zo netjes schuin doorgesneden en verzwakt op de vele verdiepingen waar het helemaal niet gebrand heeft ?

Thermiet is totaal ongeschikt als materiaal voor gecontroleerde sloop .

WAAROM wijk je weer uit ? Het gaat over NANO-THERMIET !
En Nano-thermiet kan zeker als springstof ingezet worden het is veel gemakkelijker te onsteken als normaal thermiet (heb ik toch ergens gelezen), desnoods op afstand.

En blijkbaar ook om staal te doen smelten. Nano Thermiet kan temperaturen tot 2500°C opwekken volgens de wetenschappers.

Thermiet is bovendien ook geen explosief, of beter gezegt het valt niet onder de categorie "high explosives" . Het is een mengsel van stoffen welke geen detonatie reactie geven , ze defragleren slechts. Dit betekend een dat ze vrij traag met elkaar reageren ( onder vorming van heeeel veeel licht !!)

Het gaat over nog ongebruikt nano-thermiet dat gevonden is, ge moet het filmpje van de professor Niels Harrit beter bekijken. En luisteren wat hij te zeggen heeft. Hij zegt heel wat anders als jouw uitleg.
Ik ben zeker dat die professor het veel beter weet als jij.
En blijkbaar Professor in de Chemie, hij leidt alleszins het departement Chemie in de Universiteit in Kopenhagen.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/co...001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Ik tel ook 9 wetenschappers.
Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
Het uitvoerig wetenschappelijk rapport (9,88 Mb) kunt ge downloaden.

die chips bestaan uit niets meer dan een laagje coating (verf) waar Ijzer(3)oxide in zit, en een laagje aluminium. Oxidatie en roestwerende coatings bevatten vaak Fe2O3

Waarom heeft NIST en FEMA die nano-thermiet niet gevonden ?
Omdat ze helemaal geen forensisch onderzoek gedaan hebben...

Wat zegt wikipedia (met de nodige refertes) over het gebruik van nano-thermiet ?

Uses
Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates. But because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved.[2]

MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[3] Nanoenergetic materials can store higher amounts of energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy. Thermobaric weapons are considered to be a promising application of nanoenergetic materials. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s.[4]
3.^ Gartner, John (Jan. 21, 2005). "Military Reloads with Nanotech". MIT Technology Review.

4.^ a b c d Murday, James S. (2002). "The Coming Revolution: Science and Technology of Nanoscale Structures". AMPTIAC Quarterly 6 (1).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

Gelezen ?
Ref 4 is uitgegeven door het ministerie van Defensie.

Dat is totaal geen wetenschappelijk rapport , en ik heb dat rapport al vaker besproken hier en dus zeker niet genegeert.

Het is gemaakt door wetenschappers die blijkbaar toch serieus de moeite doen én wetenschappelijk onderzoek doen.

Het meest stomzinnige van dit hele verhaal is wel het idee dat al die warmte afkomstig is van thermiet dat op 9/11 zelf is afgegaan.

Vanwaar komt die warmte dan ?

En waarom zou nano-thermiet geen rol gespeeld hebben bij de ontploffingen en instortingen, zelfs een blinde ziet in de videovertragingen dat er twee fases zijn: de ontploffingen lopen netjes voor op de instortingen van de vloeren, de ontploffingen zijn duidelijk apart zichtbaar een heel eindje verwijderd onder de instortende vloerenmassa.

En maanden later nog warm is .

En dan ? Leg dan toch eens uit ? rarara ?

Aja de andere Professor vind je hier ook terug:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

[Micele]

vervolg,
en nog een wetenschappelijk artikel, volgens wikipedia zelfs peer-reviewed.

38. ^ Jones, Steven E. "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials". http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/. Retrieved 2008-06-09.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/

Zeitschrift The Environmentalist
Verlag Springer Netherlands
ISSN 0251-1088 (Print) 1573-2991 (Online)
Heft Volume 29, Number 1 / März 2009

Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
Kevin R. Ryan1 , James R. Gourley2 and Steven E. Jones3

(1) P.O. Box 53, Bloomington, IN 47402-0053, USA
(2) Dallas, TX 75231, USA
(3) S&J Scientific Co., Provo, 84604, UT, USA

Received: 17 February 2008 Accepted: 14 July 2008 Published online: 4 August 2008

Abstract Investigators monitoring air quality at the World Trade Center, after the September 11th attacks, found extremely high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires. Data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicate striking spikes in levels of benzene, styrene, and several other products of combustion. These spikes occurred on specific dates in October and November 2001, and February 2002. Additionally, data collected by researchers at the University of California Davis showed similar spikes in the levels of sulfur and silicon compounds, and certain metals, in aerosols. To better explain these data, as well as the unusual detection of 1,3-diphenylpropane, the presence of energetic nanocomposites in the pile at Ground Zero is hypothesized.

Kevin R. Ryan
Email: [email protected]

References
American Scientist (2003) Researchers present findings on ground zero chemical fire, 16 September 2003, 1:20. http://www.americanscientist.org/tem...l&issueid=1581. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Boettner EA, Ball GA, Weiss B (1973) Combustion products from the incineration of plastics, University of Michigan, Report No. EPA-670/2-73-079, National Technical Information Service, 90–93. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/dspace...5.0001.001.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Brezinsky K, Litzinger TA, Glassman I (1984) The high temperature oxidation of the methyl side chain of toluene. Int J Chem Kinet 16(9):1053–1074. doi:10.1002/kin.550160902

Cahill TA, Shackelford CJ, Meier M et al (2003) Very fine aerosols from the World Trade Center collapse piles: anaerobic incineration. http://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/305393.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Cahill TA, Cliff SS, Perry KD et al (2004) Analysis of aerosols from the World Trade Center collapse site, New York, October 2–30, 2001. Aerosol Sci Tech 38:165–183. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/sec...text=713240928. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Clapsaddle BJ, Gash AE, Plantier KB et al (2004) Synthesis and characterization of mixed metal oxide nanocomposite energetic materials, LLNL UCRL-PROC–204118. Proceedings of the 31st international pyrotechnics seminar, May 12, 2004. http://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Prentice D et al (2005) Formulation and performance of novel energetic nanocomposites and gas generators prepared by sol–gel methods, LLNL UCRL-PROC–210871. http://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/318263.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Crebellia R, Tomeib F, Zijnoa A et al (2001) Exposure to benzene in urban workers: environmental and biological monitoring of traffic police in Rome. Occup Environ Med 58:165–171. doi:10.1136/oem.58.3.165


Dalton L (2003) Chemical analysis of a disaster. Chem Eng News 81(42):26–30. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

ENS (Environment News Service) (2002) Registry to track people exposed to WTC collapse, 18 July 2002. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2...2-07-18-02.asp

EPA (2002) World Trade Center disaster response air monitoring data summaries, 4 June 2002. http://www.epa.gov/wtc/summaries/datasummaries.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

EPA (2004) WTC response, environmental monitoring data, version 3.0, February 2004. The FOIA obtained data was provided on CD, with comma separated value (CSV) files and a query tool. The CD can be requested through EPA Region II. http://oaspub.epa.gov/nyr/cd. Some of this data is available via downloadable zip files at EPA’s website. http://www.epa.gov/wtc/monitoring/. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

EPA (2006) Environmental information management system, EIMS metadata report—document entry ID: 62021. http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/xmlreport...21&z_chk=65088. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Garrett L (2003) Full effects of WTC pollution may never be known. Newsday, 14 September 2003. http://www.newsday.com/news/health/n...age-right-area. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Gash AE, Simpson RL, Tillitson TM et al (2000) Making nanostructured pyrotechnics in a Beaker, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) UCRL-JC-137593. http://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/247064.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Gash AE, Simpson RL, Satcher JH (2002) Energetic nanocomposites with sol-gel chemistry: synthesis, safety, and characterization, LLNL UCRL-JC-146739. http://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/244137.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Gash A, Barbee T, Simpson R et al (2003) Environmentally benign stab detonators, LLNL report UCRL-TR-201628. http://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/303520.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Gonzalez J (2002) Fallout: the hidden environmental consequences of 9/11, In These Times, 10 September 2002. http://www.alternet.org/911oneyearlater/14073/?page=1. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Harreld J, Wong HP, Dave BC et al (1998) Synthesis and properties of polypyrrole–vanadium oxide hybrid aerogels. J Non-Cryst Solids 225:319–324. doi:10.1016/S0022-3093(98)00321-4

HHS (US Department of Health and Human Services) (2007) Toxicological profile for benzene. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp3.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Jenkins C (2007) Request for an investigation by the Senate Subcommittee on superfund and environmental health into the Falsification of pH corrosivity data for World Trade Center Dust, J 9/11 studies. http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...nOnWTCdust.pdf

Jones SE (2006) Why indeed did the WTC buildings completely collapse? J 9/11 studies. http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ade_Center.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Jones SE, Farrer J, Jenkins GS, Legge F et al (2008a) Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction, J 9/11 studies. http://www.journalof911studies.com/a...CHighTemp2.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Jones SE, Legge FM, Ryan KR, Szamboti AF, Gourley JR (2008b) Fourteen points of agreement with official government reports on the World Trade Center destruction, The Open Civil Eng J 2(1):35–40. doi:10.2174/1874149500802010035. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/co...1/35TOCIEJ.SGM

Kidder M, Britt PF, Zhang Z et al (2003) Pore size effects in the pyrolysis of 1,3-Diphenylpropane confined in mesoporous silicas. Chem Commun (Camb) 2003:2804–2805. doi:10.1039/b310405b

Kidder M, Britt PF, Zhang Z et al (2005) Pyrolysis of mesoporous silica-immobilized 1,3-Diphenylpropane. Impact of pore confinement and size. J Am Chem Soc 127:6353–6360. http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract...ja050389w.html. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Lipton E, Revkin AC (2001) Nation challenged: the firefighters; with water and sweat, fighting the most stubborn fire. New York Times, November 19, 2001

Luco V, MacLachlan DJ, Hook JM et al (1995) Synthesis and characterization of mesostructured vanadium oxide. Chem Mater 7:2220–2223. doi:10.1021/cm00060a002


McCaffrey WC, Brues MI, Cooper DG et al (1996) Thermolysis of polyethylene/polystyrene mixtures. J Appl Polym Sci 60:2133–2140. doi :10.1002/(SICI)1097-4628(19960620)60:12<2133::AID-APP10>3.0.CO;2-8

Meyerowitz J (2006) Aftermath: World Trade Center archive. Phaldon Publishing, London, p 178. See photograph of the event on 11/08/01 that shows a stunning and immediate change of cloud-like emissions from the pile, from dark smoke to white cloud

MOEE (Canadian Ministry of Environment and Energy) (1997) Internal review of the Ministry of Environment and Energy Response to the Plastimet Fire City of Hamilton July 9–12, 1997, Appendix II (B). http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/te...599e.htm#chap4. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Prakash A, McCromick A, Zachariah MR (2004), Aero-sol-gel synthesis of nanoporous iron-oxide particles: a potential oxidizer for nanoenergetic materials. Chem Mater 16(8):1466–1471. http://www.enme.umd.edu/~mrz/pdf_papers/2004_CM_FeO.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) (2002) America rebuilds: a year at ground zero, credited to Great Projects Film Company. http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/e...debris_06.html. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Poutsma ML, Dyer CW (1982) Thermolysis of model compounds for coal. 3. Radical chain decomposition of 1,3-Diphenylpropane and 1,4-Diphenylbutane. J Org Chem 47:4903–4914. doi:10.1021/jo00146a017

Simpson RL, Satcher JH, Gash AE (2004) Safe and environmentally acceptable sol-gel derived pyrophoric pyrotechnics, LLNL report UCRL-TR-204902. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/308591.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Swartz E, Stockburger L, Vallero D (2003) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other semivolatile organic compounds collected in New York City in response to the events of 9/11. Environ Sci Technol 37:3537–3546. http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract...es030356l.html. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

Woodward LA, Glover AT (1948) Molybdenum oxide catalysts for the reduction of phenol to benzene. Trans Faraday Soc 44:608–616. doi:10.1039/tf9484400608

Wright S (2002) Air quality scientists release WTC study. Dateline UC Davis. http://www-dateline.ucdavis.edu/021502/DL_wtc.html. Accessed 16 Feb 2008

via

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_...on_controversy

In April 2008, Jones, along with four other authors, published a letter in The Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal, titled, 'Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction'[37]. In August 2008, Jones, along with Kevin Ryan and James Gourley, published a peer-reviewed article in The Environmentalist, titled, 'Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials'.[38] And in April 2009, Jones, along with Niels H. Harrit and 7 other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.[39]...]

[Micele]

Er zouden in totaal al 5 wetenschappelijke rapporten of artikels verschenen zijn; waar blijven "de Debunkers" nu ?

Wat houdt hun dan tegen wetenschappelijke artikels of rapporten als contra te publiceren, daarvoor is o.a. het Open Bentham Scientific Journal ook gemaakt hé.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Put up or Shut up: A Year in Review

So it's been a little bit over a year since physicist Steven Jones told us "what we need to know about peer-review" while also essentially telling 9/11 "debunkers" to put up or shut up. Let's see if they have stopped just being loud and have gotten loud and clear...

In October 2008, long time 9/11 "debunker" Dr. Frank Greening and three of his colleagues were published in the American Society of Civil Engineers' peer reviewed Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM). Their paper "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York" promoted the pile-driver or crush-down theory in which the tops of the Towers act as giant sledgehammers. Greening was the third author of the paper, the first being engineer Zdenek Bazant who wrote another paper also published by the JEM on 9/13/01 essentially promoting the theory.

As the website 911research.wtc7.net pointed out:

"Bazant must be a super-genius to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behavior for steel structures and write a paper about it in just two days."

The problem for Greening and company was that their October 2008 paper was published in the JEM alongside a peer-reviewed refutation by chemical engineer James R. Gourley of the International Center for 9/11 Studies.

Now the JEM is set to publish another peer-reviewed refutation of the Bazant/Greening paper by Anders Björkman, M.Sc. in July of this year, making it the 5th mainstream peer-reviewed paper published by members of the 9/11 truth movement.

The so-called debunkers have attacked Björkman due to opinions he has regarding other aspects of the 9/11 attacks, which I do not agree with either, but when they say things such as: "you have failed to post any competent and meanginful structural calculations of the type we would expect in the design or analysis of a building, including failure thereof," they are now officially debunked.

Björkman's paper can currently be read at his personal website. It closes with the following statement:
"Simple observations of any video of the WTC1 destruction prove the Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson model wrong."

Indeed, Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Scootle Royale masterfully demonstrated this on August 30th of last year with his video "Fires, Explosions, Demolitions, Collapses, Crushdowns and the World Trade Center":


Dr. Greening, why don't you do as James Gourley has done with your work and write a peer-reviewed refutation of the latest paper he was involved in regarding 9/11?

You know, the one in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal, published by Bentham.org, that reports to have found remains of nanothermite, a high-tech military explosive, in dust recovered from the WTC.



The one that you have only attempted to refute on an internet forum where you presented disputed calculations regarding how energenic the material was, but no argument that the material was anything but nanothermite.

As Steven Jones said:

"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...

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...

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."

Being a chemist this is right up your alley, and you don't need his samples to refute his work. So what are you waiting on Dr. Greening?

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/sea...pse%20of%20WTC

[atmosphere]

Heel geweldig al die papers over nano-thermiet gerelateerde zaken . Hiermee hebben ze echter nog helemaal niets gezegt over het gebruik ervan voor de instorting van de torens !! En dat is waar het hier om gaat .

Dat idee wordt door andere wetenschappers helemaal niet ondersteund ook niet door controlled demolition specialisten (nergens wereldwijd) . Het betreft hier een select groepje lieden die hun eigen peer reviewers met een spoed cursus peer reviewing te voorschijn hebben getoverd. De peer reviewers zijn slechts onervaren studenten in de meeste gevallen.

Hier het oordeel van de lieden met werkelijke praktijk vakkennis en ervaring in de relevante vakgebieden. Een kliene greep uit de peer reviewed papers

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions Co-author Verdure. PDF. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 133 (2007): pp. 308–319
Discussion and replies to June 2006 Bazant & Verdure paper: James Gourley, G. Szuladinski

Bazant & Zhou, 2001-2002: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis J. Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Sept. 28, 2001, addendum March, 2002.



Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation. Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C., JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.



Dissecting the Collapses Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.


A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.



S. W. Banovic, T. Foecke, W.E. Luecke, et al. “The role of metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center towers collapse”, JOM, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 22-29, November 2007.



Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.

Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics; 2002 Vol. 128 Issue 7, p795-800, 6p.

"Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers" Clifton, Charles G., HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625, 25p

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Jun2005, Vol. 131 Issue 6, p654-657.

Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15

The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 (October 2004) p. 37-9

WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. ENR v. 253 no17 (November 1 2004) p. 10-11

"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations" Monahan, B., Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.


Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall "Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1" Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities Volume 21, Issue 6, pp. 414-421



Engineering Conference Papers

"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" Marechaux, T.G. JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.



Abboud, N., M. Levy, D. Tennant, J. Mould, H. Levine, S. King, C. Ekwueme, A. Jain, G. Hart. (2003) Anatomy of a Disaster: A Structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapses. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 360-370

[Big Slick]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Heel geweldig al die papers over nano-thermiet gerelateerde zaken . Hiermee hebben ze echter nog helemaal niets gezegt over het gebruik ervan voor de instorting van de torens !! En dat is waar het hier om gaat .

Dat idee wordt door andere wetenschappers helemaal niet ondersteund ook niet door controlled demolition specialisten (nergens wereldwijd) . Het betreft hier een select groepje lieden die hun eigen peer reviewers met een spoed cursus peer reviewing te voorschijn hebben getoverd. De peer reviewers zijn slechts onervaren studenten in de meeste gevallen.

Hier het oordeel van de lieden met werkelijke praktijk vakkennis en ervaring in de relevante vakgebieden. Een kliene greep uit de peer reviewed papers

Je bent jezelf hier al maanden lang belachelijk aan't maken.
Tenminste, bij diegenen die de zaak 9/11 écht hebben gevolgd.
Het is stuitend dat je Bazant en daarna ook nog Thomas Eagar opvoert ter argumentatie van uw theorie alszijnde "lieden met werkelijke praktijkkennis."
Kent u de beroepsbezigheden van beiden heren?
En kan u me dan ook eens vertellen waarom zij kredietwaardiger zouden zijn als de mensen uit de rapporten die Micele aanhaalde.
Mocht je de rapporten en aanverwanten waarnaar Micele heeft verwezen daadwerkelijk hebben gelezen, zou je weten hoe belachelijk de argumenten van bovenvernoemde confraters zijn.
Ze zijn naderhand herhaaldelijk ontkracht, zelfs door Fema en Nist.
Vind je 't zelf niet raar (verdacht) dat die Bazant steeds opduikt?
Eerst heeft hij 48 uur na de ramp al een eerste "rapport" klaar dat moet doen doorschijnen dat de instorting van die kolossen perfect normaal was. (wat het helemaal niet was).
Die theorie wordt dan later door zowat iedereen die iets afkent van de zaken niet aangenomen. En dan enkele jaren later duikt weer diezelfde Bazant op om een ditmaal andere 'officiele' theorie trachten te verkopen.
Anyway, ik ga niet meer woorden verspillen aan iemand als u.
U heeft in het verleden al meermaals laten blijken dat u één van die hopeloze gevallen bent die de officiele tot in den treure zullen blijven geloven.
Ik ken uw soort ondertussen.
Rariteiten en tegenstrijdigheden in de officiele theorie worden bij voorbaat afgewimpeld als "niet relevant". Zinloos dus om mee te discussieren.
Slaap rustig verder.

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Big Slick

Zinloos dus om mee te discussieren.

Thx, voor uw reactie. Af en toe kreeg ik nog eens zin om te proberen, maar nu niet meer. Ze komen als vliegen...

Zelfs over de "discussie" van de NORAD-response en technische middelen, waar ik nu echt met mijn jarenlange NATO-ervaring (radars-grondluchtverdediging (Duitsland) en -luchtverkeersleiding (Kleine Brogel), een hoop onzin kon debunken en zelfs terugvinden, daar wisten "die guys" het toch weer anders te verdraaien alhoewel bleek dat ze van routine-navigatiemiddelen -vliegtuigonderschepping geen kaas gegeten hadden.

Hier bvb iemand die wel veel kaas gegeten heeft:
http://www.communitycurrency.org/robin.html

Voor diegenen die het niet aanklikken:

"I was an FAA Air Traffic Controller from 1970 - 1981. In 1981, I was one of 15,000 FAA air traffic controllers who went on strike and one of the 12,000 fired for going on strike, a strike that was primarily based on our complaints about safety and working conditions within the FAA, which are still seen today.

During my time as an Air Traffic Controller, I worked at the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center in Nashua, NH, and I was certified in the air traffic sector where American Airlines Flight 11 became an "IN-FLIGHT-EMERGENCY" before being declared a "hijack" on 9/11.

In my 11-year FAA career, I worked in the development of "procedures and airspace design", including some military operations, and was part of the team which trained other Air Traffic Controllers and transitioned the FAA from its old broadband radar and simple flight data processors into the RDP (Radar Data Processing) and computerized radar displays.

I was a Facility Training Instructor and was certified to create transcripts from audio tapes, to interpret radar data in tracking aircraft from computer files, and to analyze computer tracking data, all of which would combine to "tell the story" of air traffic incidents. I was also the main creator of the Boston Center Profile Descent and Metering Program for Boston Logan airport.

And while "on the boards", I personally worked one commercial airliner hijacking and assisted on another.

I received several Letters of Commendation for my work, including one where my piloting experience was instrumental in saving the lives of two people on board an aircraft suffering an "IN-FLIGHT EMERGENCY" in which the aircraft had a total loss of electrical power while in the clouds. Our air traffic controller team ordered the scrambling of suitable military aircraft and directed the intercept which successfully led the helpless and lost aircraft down to a safe landing in "socked in" weather conditions.

Several times each year, practice exercises were conducted on how to handle high speed scrambles and group departures called "flushes" all in conjunction with military exercises and NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command). Out of Otis Air Force Base alone, twenty to thirty jet fighters would scramble and then later return.

In addition to my career as an Air Traffic Controller, I have a great deal of other experience in aviation. I was a Certified Commercial Pilot and accumulated 1600 hours total time in light aircraft; qualified in Single-Engine Land, Multi-Engine Land, Single-Engine Sea, and Glider. I was also a Certified Flight Instructor and Certified Ground Instructor. And prior to my becoming an Air Traffic Controller, I passed the Flight Engineer Basic exam focused on the Boeing 727 and accumulated over 2000 hours of aircraft maintenance, repair and rebuilding time.

I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job. Based on my 11-year experience as an FAA Air Traffic Controller in the busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of training, briefings, air refuelings, low altitude bombing drills, being part of huge military exercises, daily military training exercises, interacting on a routine basis directly with NORAD radar personnel, and based on my own direct experience dealing with in-flight emergency situations, including two instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state unequivocally; There is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen.

It is important for people to understand that scrambling jet fighters to intercept aircraft showing the signs of experiencing “IN-FLIGHT EMERGENCIES” such as going off course without authorization, losing a transponder signal and/or losing radio contact is a common and routine task executed jointly between the FAA and NORAD controllers. The entire “national defense-first responder” intercept system has many highly-trained civilian and military personnel who are committed and well-trained to this task. FAA and NORAD continuously monitor our skies and fighter planes and pilots are on the ready 24/7 to handle these situations. Jet fighters typically intercept any suspect plane over the United States within 10 - 15 minutes of notification of a problem.

This type of "immediate, high speed, high priority and emergency" scramble had been happening regularly approximately 75 - 150 times per year for ten years. In the same ten years, there were ZERO "low speed, delayed reaction, and low priority" hijacking scrambles reported, which means that the only time interceptors were ever scrambled for ten years before 9/11, they were using the high speed immediate scrambles. The system was well tuned and ready before June 2001. However, the "emergency scramble" is NOT what was used on 9/11/2001...it was the "laissez fair" scramble for a hijacking that had to get Pentagon approval before departing…and there was none forthcoming.

I spoke to Mr. Hordon one afternoon at a coffee shop in Bremerton, Washington.

“You have to understand the emotions, the duty, the job of an ATC. We are paid to watch aircraft go across the country.”
It’s clear that Hordon is passionate about the subject. A lot of people are. The dark questions that the attacks have left lingering in the national psyche have been recorded. 49% of New Yorkers believe that the government had something to do with 9/11. Following an interview with Charlie Sheen, a CNN poll revealed that 82% of respondents believed that there was “a government cover-up of 9/11.” Jay Leno asked Bill Maher on The Tonight Show about the fact that 37% of Americans (according to Scribbs-Howard) believe that the government was involved in some way with the attacks (Maher was definitely not one of them).

As far as the “emotions, the duty, the job” of an ATC is concerned, Hordon puts it this way:


“Imagine yourself at a circus, a fair, a crowded sports event. You have in your hand your little child of five or six, you’re amongst hundreds of people and you turn around and see that your child is gone. How do you feel at that moment? You feel panicked. You feel that this is the worst thing possible, so what you do is you engage. When ATCs lose an aircraft, all hell breaks loose. They flip right into motion. We take action and do not wait for other things to happen.”
As a former member of the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization), Hordon’s years as an ATC are particularly relevent to 9/11 researchers.


“I was a certified ATC in Boston west-bound departures, the routing that AA11 and UA175 followed on 9/11. I know it like the back of my hand.”
He even received a letter of commendation for his role in dealing with an actual hijacking. When it became clear that there hadn’t been a systems failure of any kind on the morning of September 11th, Hordon was certain that something had gone terribly wrong within the upper echelons of authority. A pilot (third level air carrier) as well as an ATC, he is well versed on in-flight emergency protocol. He is also adamant that if these procedures had been followed on 9/11 not one of the hijacked planes would have reached their targets.

“I’m sorry but American 11 should have been intercepted over southwest Connecticut—bang, done deal.”

According to Hordon, air emergencies requiring scrambles, or “flushes,” from fighter jets occur 50 to 150 times a year.


“It’s routine. At Otis AFB we would have practice exercises two or three times a year. We’d flush aircraft, get the B-52’s up, get the tankers up, get the fighters up. Just out of Otis there’d be twenty, thirty fighter jets. And on 9/11 there were plenty of fighters as well. They were just diverted over the ocean, tied up in drills, etc.”

The vast majority of air incidents are simple communications or routing failures, common mishaps that are easily remedied. Nonetheless, when a problem does arise, it is treated as an emergency and interceptors are scrambled.

“This is exactly what’s written in our manuals. We alert our immediate supervisors, we get another set of eyes on the scope. We have, two feet away from us, a little button that says ADC, Air Defense Command [nowadays NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector)]. Bing, hit the button. ‘Hey, this is me at the Boston Center air space. I just lost a target or I have an erratic target. He is twenty-five miles west of Keene, last reported at such-and-such location.’”

Pilots use similar checklists when responding to problems with their airplanes:

“If I lose an engine in a multi-engine aircraft I know exactly what to do. I start to control the aircraft to fly with one engine, I’ll shut the ailing engine down, I’ll get the aircraft trimmed up. It’s check, check, check.”
Hordon is not persuaded by those who make excuses for the lack of military response on 9/11. U.S. air defenses have been on hair-trigger alert to defend the nation from attack since the early sixties. The idea that, on the morning of 9/11, there was an inexplicable wave of incompetence on the part of his former FAA “brothers in arms” offends him deeply.

“The pilots are in their ready rooms, the planes are in open-ended hangars. You have frontline players, pilots and controllers. I’m there, I’m watching. The pilot is there, he’s flying. We have direct air defense command communications. That’s the way it’s been for fifty years.”

The unfathomable delays seen in military action on 9/11 are inconceivable to those who have painstakingly investigated the matter—and for a man who worked for years keeping air travel over the U.S. safe.

“Military pilots would have their asses off the ground faster than you could imagine. I know how quickly our systems can respond. Why would you design a system that responds slowly to an emergency?”

Claims by authorities that, once a hijacked aircraft’s transponders have been turned off, the plane becomes virtually invisible to radar, is another sore point for Hordon.

“Bottom line, these aircraft were always radar monitored, we were always in communication with them, even if they were hijacked. The only way you can lose an aircraft these days is for the plane to flat out blow up.”

Since any genuine air attack would not likely announce itself as such, NORAD radar has to be able to detect anything. But there’s nothing stealthy about an enormous Boeing passenger liner, whether its transponder is operating properly or not.

“That aircraft is represented on their radar scope from the time it takes off to the time it lands. Even little puddle-jumpers out of our local airports. NORAD tracks all these aircraft. They have the world’s most sophisticated radar.”

After eleven eventful years as an ATC, Hordon naturally reacted with shock when he first heard that fifty years of tried and true in-flight emergency protocol was abruptly altered in June of 2001, just two months before the attacks.

“Rumsfeld put a third party in between the ATC and the Air Defense Controller responsible for scrambling interceptors —the Pentagon.”

.... ]