9/11, 9/11 fifteen years on, Catte, featured, Kit, OffG, Vaska

why we’re covering 9/11 fifteen years on

A reader called “Paul” recently emailed us this message:

I for one, do not care for your ‘9/11 was a inside job’ articles.

The insane re-addressing of a american terrorist incident that happened 15 years ago is actually very, very boring.

If your website wants to survive, then I would frankly do away with the 9/11 crap and get on with what is happening now.


Get some proper articles together because your website is getting like a very sad and f_cked up ‘Infowars’ based conspiracy channel.



Paul is probably not as plugged in to recent geopolitical history as he should be, but leaving that aside, we do realise some of our readers will be questioning our decision to cover the 9/11 fifteenth anniversary, so we thought we’d take this opportunity to talk about that.

Firstly, we think there’s no point in expending the effort involved in running OffGuardian, if we are going to be selective in our scepticism. Fifteen years ago the idea of large scale false flags or government deceptions seemed absurd to all of us. But the unraveling of so many official narratives in recent years; the lies over WMDs, the lies over Ghouta, the lies over Libya and Ukraine, the repeat evidence for wholesale manipulation, if not fabrication, of events to promote war, means we don’t feel able to simply take the events of 9/11 on trust any more. It was the catalyst for the perpetual war currently being waged, the ultimate fail-safe irrefutable argument to silence criticism of the Patriot Act, Guantanamo and the creeping emergence of fascism in the Western world.

How can any of us continue to question everything 9/11 has brought us, but not question 9/11 itself?

We aren’t interested in simply erecting new certitudes to replace the used ones. We aren’t claiming “Bush did it” or “Israel did it” or “the Saudis did it”, or indeed “Bin Laden did it.” We want to take a long and dispassionate look at the evidence for what actually happened that day, and give space, as our remit dictates, to those opinions and facts that tend to be silenced in the mainstream.

On 9/11 three steel-framed high-rise buildings collapsed completely at near free-fall speed allegedly due to fires – which, if true, makes them the only steel-framed high-rises in construction history to have ever done this. Rationally and objectively, this is something worth examining, as unique events always are. Did the government-appointed enquiry by the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) do a thorough job in explaining why this unique event occurred? Or did it do what government-appointed enquiries usually do and fudge? Do we have answers or evasions?

For some reason these questions are routinely avoided, even by those who are willing to ask similar questions about WMDs or Syrian chemical weapons or Chilcot. The fear of the label “conspiracy theorist” deters too many of us – which of course is just what it was intended to do.

But if even the “non-Truther” alt news community allow itself to be controlled and corralled by Orwellian language-manipulation, we have already conceded the ultimate power to those we are supposed to be challenging. The same social forces that invented the phrase “conspiracy theory” only need to invent other no-go labels in future to effectively force us into further self-censorship. Unless at some point we refuse to allow the voodoo word-magic to work on us.

So, we’re using the fifteenth anniversary of 9/11 to pose a couple of very basic questions:

  • Has the government sufficiently explained its version of events?
  • Does this version fit the observed facts better than any other?

The fact this is considered by so many intelligent people to be an “out there” thing to do speaks volumes about how much even the most savvy of us are currently brainwashed.

The phrase “conspiracy theorist” is an empty meme invented to deter enquiry. We don’t think this is a good thing and we don’t intend to be controlled by it. We believe facts really should be sacred – however unpopular they may be and whatever label someone may have attached to them.

We all hope our readers will find this series interesting, thought-provoking and maybe even enlightening.



  1. This thread has 209 comments on it and is becoming unwieldy due to the shortcomings of the software. So, we’re closing it. Feel free to transfer ongoing discussions to other 9/11 threads.

  2. Michael Scott says

    I agree with the premises of the article. I do not agree, however, that the derogatory use of the term “conspiracy theorist” was “intended” to do anything. It is simply another case of the putrification of language. There is still some semantic value left in the word, although its usage has been largely corrupted by having been seized upon, to stifle debate. What is really sad is that so many people consider all debate to be disquieting. They are those for whom the state, majority opinion etc should always have the last word.

    As an evidence-based conspiracy theorist myself the misuse of the term “conspiracy” which simply means the clandestine grouping of a number of people opposed to the common good, is fairly outrageous.

    • Loop Garou says

      I do agree with you in part, however, this article and related book traces how the phrase “conspiracy theory” was created by the CIA to divert people from speculating JFK’s assassination was an “inside job”.

    • Jerome Fryer says

      You should just be more exact in the use of ‘conspiracy’.

      There are real conspiracies — mostly within the business world, where honesty is a liability — and then there are real policies intended to subvert the greater good of the societies they affect. Policy, even when cloaked / misreported or simply unreported, is not conspiracy but it is indeed ‘the gummint’ out to get you’ (if you’re not in the elite that are backing the policy). Propaganda and demonisation in pursuit of securing narrow interests (e.g. the latest ‘Russia scare’) is also a form of broad conspiracy, where mainstream media are pressed into service of the official narrative.

      It is always a complex structure, with different groups typically at cross-purposes pursuing different short-term goals, and requires effort to get at the likely underlying truth. The prevalence of “conspiracy theorists” / “hoaxers” / “tinfoil hat wearers” are part of the problem, and are encouraged by those wishing to cloak actual conspiracy, as their gullibility obstructs reaching the genuine conspiracies / policies that are doing the actual damage.

      Similarly with scepticism, which does not mean denying demonstrable facts.

      • PainedScientist says

        Remember that Jerome – “skepticism does not mean denying demonstrable facts.”

        Not demonstrable opinions. It’s fine to deny those and we all should if we can show them to be invalid.

        Not demonstrable theories – such as NIST’s ideas about how the towers might have come down – it’s fine to deny those too if they contravene physical laws.

        But as you say it’s not fine to deny demonstrable facts. Such as the law of Conservation of Momentum, for example. And the thermal conductivity of steel.

        NIST denies the second of those and hand-waves around the first, and so do you when you repeat their unproven collapse theories as if they were some sort of established fact.

          • PainedScientist says

            The pained – and patient – kind Jerome.

            • Jerome Fryer says

              Upon what do you base your claim to be a scientist? What field of research?

              • PainedScientist says

                I have a science degree and taught science. I know about the law of Conservation of Momentum and I know steel does not have a thermal conductivity of zero. But so what? Why ask? Who cares?

                Are you planning to take my word for something? Don’t take my word for anything. Don’t take NIST’s word for anything. Do your own fact-checking, and if they check out, don’t deny them

  3. My two cents worth: I agree with Off Guardian on it’s decision to look at 9/11 in the spirit which they do.

  4. “On 9/11 three steel-framed high-rise buildings collapsed completely at near free-fall speed allegedly due to fires – which, if true, makes them the only steel-framed high-rises in construction history to have ever done this.”

    I could be wrong, but I remember something about two airplanes as well. Allegedly, they flew into the building before the fire, wrecking the internal scaffolding. And probably the part of the building above the points of impact had some weight, which put enormous pressure on the remains of the construction. To omit this as if it were some minor detail hurts your credibility.

    It is always a good thing to question the narrative of the mainstream media, but I never read any serious news outlet claiming that the two towers collapses because of a fire. And I believe here lies the point you are missing. Yes, you should question each and every statement in the news. But if there is no solid basis for doubt, then there is no story worth publishing.

    • JanJoukedeHaan says

      I don’t know what you mean by “wrecking the internal scaffolding” Both towers had extremely strong internal steel columns, continuous all the way from basement to top, which were fully intact below the point of impact, and load bearing steel columns along the whole perimeter of the towers, which were also fully intact below the point of impact. In both the “pancaking” and the “piledriver” scenarios, the inner columns would still have stood, as well as the whole structure below the 20th floor or so.

      I you haven’t read “a serious news outlet” claiming that the three buildings collapsed due to fire, I’d advise you to read the reports from FEMA and NIST. They made that statement.

  5. Husq says

    Israel and 911, The Empire Unmasked (excerpts) Ryan Dawson:

  6. Quite recently re-released FOX NEWS report

    This was broadcast on Fox News Carl Cameron’s expose THIS IS A MUST LISTEN. It is hard to believe Fox News ever got this published. Much of the most damning info is in the second half of the broadcast.

    Key points:

    After 911, Israeli companies tipped off perpetrators of 911 to when the FBI, CIA an other American intelligence was onto them, so they could immediately change their identities and prevent the investigations from proceeding. Additionally, once the investigations started, the perpetrators were given the ability to wire tap all of the investigator’s phones and other communications via Israeli owned companies and spy infrastructure, to totally circumvent capture. If this does not by itself prove Israel did 911, I do not know what possibly could.

    Israeli companies tip off Israeli drug dealers to when American investigation efforts have pinned them down, and like the perpetrators of 911, the Israelis then provide even drug dealers with wire taps on the investigators in pursuit of them, to help them completely evade capture.

    This Fox News report is SO DAMNING one wonders if wonder if Carl Cameron is even alive. This series was shut down 8 out of 12 segments early. Much can be extrapolated from even these 4 segments, The implication is that Israel is America’s primary enemy.

    [edited to combine two video links]

  7. CloudSlicer says

    What is ‘racist’ about saying that the 9/11 operation may have involved some Israelis?

    • Eric_B says

      What do you think might be racist about blaming Jews for a terrorist attack on America?

      • Moriarty's Left Sock says

        Not Jews, the state of Israel. Are you saying the state of Israel should be beyond criticism – just like the Guardian thinks?

        • Eric_B says

          Sure, but as we all know the ‘state of israel’ is often used as a proxy for people who just hate Jews.

          And if anyone actually thinks or claims to think that the state of Israel or Jews were involved in 9/11…

          I say to such people, you are anti Semites, fuck you.

      • CloudSlicer says

        By that reasoning, it is racist to blame some Saudis who came from Saudi Arabia to hijack the planes.

        ‘Jewishness’ is not a ‘race’ by the way – it is a religion.

        • Eric_B says

          Why is it racist to state the fact that most of the terrorists who hijacked the planes were from Saudi Arabia?

  8. We get anti-semitic remarks very often. Most we let stand, some we don’t if they are inciting genuine race-hate. Blaming Israel for 9/11 is not anti-Semitism. Our policy is that Israel is a state and can be critiqued like any other state.

  9. CloudSlicer says

    @Eric_B So is that your considered response is it, after having read the paper? – (If you have, which I doubt) – To immediately try to discredit the paper by saying it was published in an open access journal, with the clear implication that it is therefore not ‘proper’ science?

    The main point of publishing in an open access journal, which does not require subscriptions, was to allow as many interested people as possible to read the paper. I take it you have not taken advantage of this yet?

    Your clear purpose here is to obfuscate and attempt to side-track the discussion by a process of endless and repeated splitting of hairs, and forcing the focus to be on one small area of the overall topic, with the presumed intent being to confuse and mislead readers. You seem to have no serious intention of engaging with the real discussion and I conclude you are a troll.

    • CloudSlicer says

      Oops! – My post above was written in reply to a post by Eric B, which was further down the thread, in which he criticised the ‘nano-thermite’ paper being published in an open access journal, thereby implying that it was therefore not done as part of a proper ‘scientific’ process. This is a common criticism of adherents of the official narrative about this paper.

      This comment by Eric B must have been deleted before I posted my reply, and so my reply appeared out of position in this thread.

      • Admin says

        No comments have been intentionally deleted. If they had I think your reply would be gone too. Something odd may be going on. We are getting a huge volume of comments compared to our usual amount. I’ll look into it

    • Eric_B says

      it’s not a proper scientific journal so forget it.

      wake me up when real universities start publishing it.

      • CloudSlicer says

        Since you claim to know so much about the science of thermite and thermitic reactions, as well as what constitutes ‘proper science’. Perhaps you could first read and digest the Harrit paper and then come back to us with your analysis and criticisms of the science therein. Until you do that your words are wind.

        • Eric_B says

          Look, anybody can understand the thermite reaction. Basically what happens is that the more reactive aluminium takes the oxygen atom from the less reactive iron.

          • You need to read the paper in order to understand what the paper claims. You have the link. Read the paper. Then if you disagree with the paper you can post a rebuttal. In fact we will even host it if you want us to. But you can’t keep critiquing a theory you haven’t read.

            • Eric_B says

              I don’t need to read a paper to understand the thermite reaction which i have personally conducted and witnessed before.

              i couldnt give a fuck if some droooling anti semites or other whackoes have produced some kind of soiled toilet roll that I’m expected to look at.

              • You DO need to read the paper to understand the paper. Don’t read it if you don’t want to, but don’t disrupt conversations between people who have read it by demanding explanations that are available IN THE PAPER.

                • Jerome Fryer says

                  You need to understand a paper for it to be of any use. Unless you are the intended audience, you won’t understand it and thus are not in any position to analyse it.

                  Most people have difficulty understanding non-technical, non-specialist articles covering science or technology.

              • Moriarty's Left Sock says

                @Eric_B whoa – so you’re accusing these respected scientists of being “drooling anti-semites and wackoes” now?

                You are losing it my friend.

          • CloudSlicer says

            I repeat, read the Harritt paper on these specialised, energetic nanocomposites, which they term nano-thermite and tell us all why their work is unscientific and irrelevant to the topic of 9/11 WTC building demolition. Until you do that you’re just engaging in repetitive disruption.

            • Eric_B says

              I couldnt give a fuck about this Harrit twat, whoever he is.

              Don’t you understand I don’t care. I have chemists right here, e.g. my dad, who know their shit.

              • CloudSlicer says

                What a wonderful contribution to science you make. I bet your dad is really proud of you.

                Niels H. Harrit is a Professor in the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Why does that make him a ‘twat’?

              • If you don’t care then shut up. Eric. You’ve lost your cool and your sense of proportion. Close your comp down, go away and take some deep breaths. Watch TV, take a walk. Come back another day. This is getting silly and nasty and needs to stop.

                • Eric_B says

                  I won’t kowtow to 9/11 whackoes. Let that be understood. This is not to say that I might not take a walk or some fresh air at this point should I wish to.

  10. Eric_B says

    Well, this 9/11 stuff has been an eye opener.

    I now see that this site is populated by nutjob conspiracy theorists, both the main posters, and the commenters.

    Then there is the anti Semitic angle. There’s been a lot of hateful comments against Jews here, which have been tolerated. Unacceptable.

    My recent comments against 9/11 conspiracy theorists who insulted me here were heavily censored, and I was threatened with being banned, just for disputing the site’s 9/11 nonsense.

    Screenshot taken by the way, just in case you delete me. We learned that one from the Guardian, didn’t we.

    • Admin says

      Stop lying. You’ve been given more than ample space, and no one has threatened you with banning. You’re still here aren’t you. . But repeat posts are always removed, so since you make a lot of repeat posts sometimes in rapid succession I suppose you may think you’ve been censored. You haven’t.

      Currently you are offering nothing but disruption. We don’t ban disrupters, trolls or shills, but we do encourage them to move on.

      Please consider moving on.

    • CloudSlicer says

      Again with the ad hominems! – ” nutjob conspiracy theorists “.
      Are you a professional gatekeeper, or do you only do this on 9/11 anniversaries?

      • Eric_B says

        Actually I agree with Off Guardian on nearly all topics, but not this one. So I will certainly continue to read and post.

        • Admin says

          Be courteous and constructive, and you’re welcome to post as much as you want. You don’t have to agree, but disagreement isn’t calling people “nutters” or refusing to read opposing POVs. That is disruptive and can be easily mistaken for trolling. Many sites would have banned you. We haven’t and we won’t. Please reward that openness.

          • Eric_B says

            I like the site so I assent to the rules. Sometimes one gets a bit heated in debates.

  11. Mick McNulty says

    The two columns of light at Ground Zero remind me of the Cathedral of Light which Albert Speer created for Nazi rallies. His beams were produced by anti-aircraft searchlights in a spectacular display all around a square or an arena. This isn’t the only idea the Americans have had which the Nazis had first.

    • Eric_B says

      But whatever we might say about America, it doesn’t bear much resemblance to the Third Reich does it really?

      I am not saying America is not bad, but it’s bad in a different way.

      • Moriarty's Left Sock says

        Look at national parades, the NFL, all sports events, flags and military everywhere. Does it look so different from newsreel of Nazi rallies? Nazified countries never realise they’re nazified.

        • Eric_B says

          Sure it’s regimented in that sense, and faux ceremonial, but it’s not Nazi as such.

          Maybe a Trump rally could be, if there was enough enthusiasm, but I haven’t seen it yet.

    • Jerome Fryer says

      The Nazis were aping the Italian fascists, who were aping Imperial Rome.

      The USA is a republic with a senate and lower house, and effectively elects an Emporer every four years. Similarities shouldn’t be surprising, as it is largely by design.

      (History didn’t start nor end with the Nazis.)

  12. Eric_B says

    BigB wrote:
    You can post as many videos as you like; but they only serve to illustrate your growing ignorance – thermite and nano-thermite are not the same. Read Harrit – nano-thermite is a micro-engineered military grade state of the art explosive.

    Thermite is not an explosive. It’s an exothermic reaction which results in molten iron.

    This is basic science.

    [edited for ad hom]

      • Eric_B says

        [edited for ad hom]. My father is a chemist and i have some some (not much to be fair) chemistry understanding.

        But there is nothing fucking complicated about thermite. It’s an exciting reaction but it’s very very basic.

    • Admin says

      @Eric_B If you refuse to read any but one side of the debate there’s no point in your commenting here. Either offer facts , read the links provided and involve yourself in a discussion or stop posting.

      • Eric_B says

        I am involved in a discussion.

        I have offered facts, including a video demonstration of the thermite reaction.

        I am not going to read links from sites like ‘911research’.

        • No, you are simply repeating claims that have been rebutted. You’ve been told NIST pretended steel was non-conductive in order to make their models work. Your response is to repeat the basic claim that fire and planes brought down the towers. This is not a reply. You’ve been told nanothermite has different properties than thermite. Your response is to say “thermite doesn’t explode”. This is not a reply. If you don’t want to engage with these points then leave the debate. At the moment you are simply being disruptive.

          • Eric_B says

            just to deal with one of your claims, thermite doesnt explode as i showed in my video made by actual chemists.

            it gets very hot and you end up with molten iron. that’s it.

            so tell me all about nano thermite, its chemical composition, how it explodes. and how it differs from normal thermite.

            is it unreasonable for me to ask for the details of something which for all i know is entirely fictional?

            • Admin says

              You have asked and been answered, MANY times. You have been given links to papers and websites but you refuse to read them. There is no point in posting here continuing to make claims while refusing to look at the evidence against those claims.

            • Actually, it is unreasonable especially if even before you engage any of the literature, you dismiss it out of hand, eh.

              So either you are a troll who fancies himself clever by dropping into a forum where some people are genuinely looking for answers and others are sincerely trying to point them in potentially fruitful directions, and you are gauchely trying to masquerade as the former, or you don’t understand the most elementary thing about the institutional foundation of modern science, and until you begin to twig to this if only dimly, having a conversation with you is about as pointless as talking to a brick.

              Am I being condescending? If you’re a troll, yes. Dullness that mistakes itself for cleverness remains dull. If you’re not a troll, then absolutely not because sadly, a certain minimum of assumptions are absolutely required to be able to rise to even an elementary understanding of the evidence being documented and cataloged by people like Jones and Harrit and many thousands of others.

              So to put it as simply as I can, fuck off or go and read the “damn literature,” as someone has already advised you, and make an honest effort to try to understand what it is you are reading.

    • Moriarty's Left Sock says

      Thermite is an incendiary, but nanothermite can act as an explosive, or at least it has a highly increased energy, because of the nature of the mixing. It’s all there and sourced in the paper.

      • Eric_B says

        Says who? There is no chemical mechanism for thermite to do anything other than melt down like it always does.

        What paper is this? Who reviewed it?

    • BigB says

      No, you are right, thermite is not an explosive – but nano or super thermite is or can be; it can be engineered to produce different reaction rates. But your dodging again – it matters less what caused it – a government report contains evidence that some of the steel was reduced to “swiss cheese”. If not nano-thermite; ask your dad what could cause that?

      • Eric_B says

        if it was going to be an explosive it would need to contain explosives. otherwise it will just be thermite.

  13. BigB says

    OMG Eric – you’re a persistent one, I’ll give you that.
    About six hours ago I posted a link to a limited ‘Forensic Metallurgy’ of some of the beams of the twin towers. Six hours later you are still ignoring everyones points and coming up with your own. Why am I still banging on, well this is important.
    The link pertains to the FEMA report, which predates NIST by several years. The significance, their Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT); gained limited access to the steel structure at the aptly named Fresh Kills (sic). (They weren’t allowed access to Ground Zero). Hence, they were the only ones who had the chance to perform any forensic analysis of the steel before it was spirited away to China.
    What they found was unique and crucial to the investigation – “they reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused “intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.” This is in a Government report; not on the Alex Jones channel! Something turned those beams into molten alloy – it wasn’t paint; it wasn’t kerosene, it wasn’t office fires and it wasn’t thermite.
    Please read what people are saying here. You can post as many videos as you like; but they only serve to illustrate your growing ignorance – thermite and nano-thermite are not the same. Read Harrit – nano-thermite is a micro-engineered military grade state of the art explosive. Harrit had (he’s retired) 40yrs experience in the field – as he has said “you can’t fudge this kind of science”.
    Thankyou and goodnight.

  14. CloudSlicer says

    Please keep up this refreshing attempt to allow examination of the events of 9/11. It was the catalysing event of our time but we are not allowed to examine it or discuss it outside the narative of the ‘official’ conspiracy theory. Any attempt to do so within the MSM is immediately blocked or swamped by ad hominem attacks, using pejorative terms like ‘conspiracy theorist’, ‘conspira-loon’, ‘tin-hat wearer’, ‘trufer’, etc., or other attempts to misdirect or misinform the argument.

    There are massive problems with the official story, which simply do not match the known and observable facts. We have not been told the truth about what happened, and the official so-called ‘investigative’ reports turned out to be a whitewash, so we need to ask questions and probe in order to get to the truth – whatever it turns out to be. There is no doubt that there was some kind of conspiracy behind what happened, and to try to find out the details surrounding that conspiracy and its related events does not make one a ‘conspiracy theorist’, but a ‘conspiracy analyst’.

  15. Eric_B says

    Admin September 11, 2016
    The heat was not hot enough to melt steel, NIST say this in their report. No more than 800-1000deg, possibly substantially less.

    Jesus Christ, how many times has this been gone through already in the last 15 years?

    It doesn’t need to melt the steel, just weaken it. and 800 to 1,000 degrees centigrade is more than enough.

    • painedScientist says

      No, it doesn’t “only need to”, it’s just that this was all NIST could squeeze out of the physics. It knew it could NOT claim the fires melted the steel so it tried to create a way that “softening” alone would produce a collapse that was indistinguishable from controlled demolition.

      You know how they managed to get a computer model to show sufficient “softening” of the steel?

      a) by assuming on the grounds of no data that ALL the fire-retardant foam had been “knocked off” by the impact of the jets and

      b) (this is the good bit) assuming the steel in question totally lost its thermo-conductivity for the duration of the fire/collapse.

      In other words – you know how steel conducts heat? You know how it always conducts heat because this is a basic property of what steel is? Well, NIST assumed the steel in the WTC stopped being able to do that for a short while, because if it didn’t it could not make a model that allowed the steel to get hot enough to initiate a collapse.

      It’s like trying to explain how your neighbor’s TV ended up in your truck by saying it walked there, because TVs could just walk for a while that day.

      So, even if you don’t have a problem with the only three high rises to ever be brought down by fire all collapsing on one day in one place, and even if you don’t have a problem with asymmetrical damage causing symmetrical collapses in free-fall (another world first), surely you have a problem with the official explanation being based on the idea the laws of physics just stopped for a few hours one day in September 2001?

      • Eric_B says

        But again youre trying to claim the only problem the towers had was fire, when we saw planes slicing through the structures.

        • painedScientist says

          This is the official government explanation for how the towers fell. Not mine. NIST’s.

          NIST says the planes damaged the structure, but FIRE brought the towers down. And the only way they can make a model that demonstrates this claim is by pretending steel is non-conductive.

          How the hell can anyone say this is the last word? How the hell can anyone call someone who wants more investigation a “nutter”?

          • Jerome Fryer says

            Are you claiming that NIST state that steel doesn’t conduct heat?

            • Loop Garou says

              NIST do say that. Or at least to make their computer model produce enough heat in certain locations they admit they assigned the steel zero conductivity. Which means they were saying they assumed the steel in the WTC could not conduct heat.

              Yes, it’s crazy. And yes that’s what NIST says.

                • Loop Garou says

                  FROM THE NIST REPORT:
                  “The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used.” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 20

                  “The interior walls [including insulated steel columns] were assumed to have the properties of gypsum board [0.5 W/m/K].” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 52

                  “Although the floor slab actually consisted of a metal deck topped with a concrete slab…the thermal properties of the entire floor slab were assumed to be that of concrete [1.0 W/m/K].” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 52

  16. Eric_B says

    painedScientist September 11, 2016
    The iron was molten before it solidified into spheres. They are spheres because they melted at droplet size, due to the ultra-fine mixing of iron and aluminum.

    But you would not have iron and aluminum. You would have iron and aluminium oxide as a result of a thermite reaction.

    • painedScientist says

      Yes, which is what Harrit et al found. Solidified iron spheres and aluminum oxide.

      Read the paper.

      • Eric_B says

        It wouldnt be spheres. molten iron doesn’t form spheres. It just makes a puddle.

        • painedScientist says

          For heaven’s sake man, don’t you know basic physics? ANY liquid is capable of forming droplets. The iron was released from the nano compound at high energy. Hence droplets.

          Read the paper.

          • Eric_B says

            Bollocks was it. Thermite doesnt do that.

            • You are not refuting science you are just saying “no it isn’t”. Make a point, back it up with data or we’ll assume you’re trolling.

            • painedScientist says

              Thermite doesn’t do what?

              All liquids form droplets. Liquid iron will form droplets.

        • CloudSlicer says

          Molten iron, when blasted into the air from an explosion will form tiny spheres which then rapidly cool and solidify as they travel through the air. This is what has been found in the WTC dust in abundance – about 5% by mass.

          Yes, molten iron also forms puddles, and these too were found and observed in the remains of the buildings. Molten iron was also observed pouring from parts of the towers before they collapsed.

          How do we get molten iron, when even NIST admit that the fire temperatures were not hot enough to actually melt steel?

          • Eric_B says

            It could form spheres if you had a mixture of thermite and high explosive I guess, yes. I don’t know though. You’d probably just end up dispersing the thermite so it couldnt burn properly.

            The supposed molten iron in the ruins of the world trade centre i regard as utter unconfirmed bollocks.

            • You would. The molten iron was reported by no end of rescue workers and firemen who were on the site between September and November 2001. There are numerous YouTube films containing their evidence and pictures of the molten metal and smoke rising from the site.
              But, hey, believe what you like. What has evidence got to do with anything.

              • Eric_B says

                oh yes m sure. no end of un named so called eye witnesses.

                • If you could be bothered to look, troll, you’d see large numbers of New York firemen in their gear look you in the eye and tell you exactly what they saw in the bowels of the WTC.
                  You’d also discover that 9/11 was an Israeli operation. Hasbara activitists defend these genocidal criminals. Maybe they buy into the Orthodox teaching that gentiles are “not human” so this kind of treatment of cattle like us doesn’t really matter?
                  Maybe, like the facts about 9/11, I’m telling you something you already know?

  17. Eric_B says

    September 11, 2016
    Finding nanothermite specifically is nothing like finding a piece of plane and a lump of iron, you absolute knob-head.

    What do you even mean by ‘finding nano thermite’? Do you mean finding thermite (iron oxide and aluminium) or the product of the thermite reaction (Aluminium oxide and iron)? [ad hom deleted by admin]

    • BigB says

      OMG Eric – you’re a persistent one, I’ll give you that.

      About six hours ago I posted a link to a limited ‘Forensic Metallurgy’ of some of the beams of the twin towers. Six hours later you are still ignoring everyones points and coming up with your own. Why am I still banging on, well this is important.

      The link pertains to the FEMA report, which predates NIST by several years. The significance, their Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT); gained limited access to the steel structure at the aptly named Fresh Kills (sic). (They weren’t allowed access to Ground Zero). Hence, they were the only ones who had the chance to perform any forensic analysis of the steel before it was spirited away to China.

      What they found was unique and crucial to the investigation – “they reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused “intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.” This is in a Government report; not on the Alex Jones channel! Something turned those beams into molten alloy – it wasn’t paint; it wasn’t kerosene, it wasn’t office fires and it wasn’t thermite.

      Please read what people are saying here. You can post as many videos as you like; but they only serve to illustrate your growing ignorance – thermite and nano-thermite are not the same. Read Harrit – nano-thermite is a micro-engineered military grade state of the art explosive. Harrit had (he’s retired) 40yrs experience in the field – as he has said “you can’t fudge this kind of science”.

      Thankyou and goodnight.

      • Eric_B says

        Show me the link to a US government site and i will be happy to read the official report.

        If your link is only to a conspiraloon site which makes claims about this and that, then don’t bother.

          • Eric_B says

            Yeah i notice your link says ‘911research’ in it.

            That’s a conspiracy site not a government site, right? [the link and quote pertain to FEMA’s report, and the description of unique eutectic reactions is FEMA’s – OffG ed]

        • CloudSlicer says

          So, anyone outside of the US government who questions the validity of the official narrative is, according to you, a “conspiraloon” – nice, rational analysis there!

          You are a troll. End of discussion.

  18. Eric_B says

    These guys are great if you haven’t seen their chemistry videos before.

    Here’s the thermite reaction.

  19. Eric_B says

    Norman Pilon
    September 11, 2016
    Actually, Eric, it does not go without saying. The elemental iron that we are talking about is on the scale of nano-particles in the shape of beautiful little spheres. These little iron spheres have never…ever… ever…. ever… been observed in the absence of a thermitic reaction, nor is there a chemical recipe anywhere that has ever been concocted or conceived to produce these spherules that isn’t a thermitic reaction.

    Absolute rubbish. Thermite reactions do not result in little spheres of iron, they result in a mass of molten iron which then solidifies. Try a thermite reaction yourself and you’ll see.

    • PainedScientist says

      Read the Harrit, Jones et al paper and quit spamming.

      • Eric_B says

        Who the hell are Harrit and Jones and why do i need their opinion when I have seen the thermite reaction with my own eyes more than once?

        • john says

          Because they are real scientists who see thru the deception of 911.

        • painedScientist says

          Harrit and Jones (et al) are the lead scientist who did the nanothermite experiments. If you wanna know what they found you gotta read their paper Eric.

            • Eric_B says

              Not so much scared as saddened by having 9/11 nutters infect an otherwise enjoyable site.

              • painedScientist says

                Define “nutters”. People who have read papers you refuse to read? People who know more physics than you? People who have read the NIST report and know half the stuff you are claiming as fact isn’t even in there?

              • You can’t engage in intelligent discourse so you name-call. The usual Hasbara technique.
                It should be interesting if OffGuardian ever posts an article on other taboos topics regarding which heresies and even debate are forbidden. Start writing your 4- letter lists now. We all understand why abuse and palpable nonsense is all you got.

          • Eric_B says

            There is not even any such special thing as nano thermite. There is just thermite.

            Thermite performs as demonstrated in the video. A puddle of molten iron is the result.

            Really it’s not complicated. Works the same every time.

            • Nanothermite, or similar material was reported in scientific publications in late 2000. The detail is in Harrit et al.

              • Eric_B says

                But all it would mean is having finely powdered aluminum and iron oxide. Which might speed the reaction up somewhat. But so what. The reaction goes hellish fast anyway even with very course powders.

                And the end result would be the same. Molten iron. Not iron spheres.

                • painedScientist says

                  The iron was molten before it solidified into spheres. They are spheres because they melted at droplet size, due to the ultra-fine mixing of iron and aluminum.

                  Read the paper.

    • Moriarty's Left Sock says

      Jones found tiny iron-rich spheres throughout the WTC dust, and wondered what they were. Later, after they found the red-gray chip and heated them he discovered these produced identical iron-rich spheres. Yes, thermite produces molten iron, that’s not in dispute (and is actually another point Jones makes regarding 9/11). The point is this stuff Jones found is a different sort of thermite with the elements mixed at a finer level – nanothermite, which produces a much more intense reaction and also produces tiny iron globules of the kind observed. Nanothermite is a military grade substance available in paint-on and gel forms. It’s all in Jones’s paper.

      • Eric_B says

        so called nano thermite, if it even exists, would also produce molten iron. that’s unavoidable, that’s the nature of the iron oxide/aluminium reaction.

        • painedScientist says

          the iron sphere were molten when they turned into spheres. Picture solidified water-spray. The thermitic reaction melted the iron into tiny droplets that then solidified into spheres.

          • Eric_B says

            what are you even talking about?

            the iron oxide turns into a gooey mass of molten iron.

            we can clearly see that in any video of the thermite reaction.

          • No one needs to engage with this stuff. The collapse times prove demolition. Inside job. Nuff said.

            50+% of the US public know this. The train is coming for the criminal elite. Know it.

  20. William Savory says

    I, for one, really respect that your website is addressing the issue of 9/11. Counterpunch doesn’t go there, for example, because it is ‘politically incorrect’ for them to do so, I guess.

    It is very suspicious, especially with the destruction of the third tower (and explaining that debris from one of the other towers collapsing, hitting the side of the building, would cause it to collapse, which is what the BBC tried to claim, just doesn’t cut it for me). And, how can anyone believe that the FBI agents found one of the hijacker’s passport, just very conveniently lying on the ground midst all the masses amounts of rubble? If the fires from the jets were hot to cause the building to collapse, how on earth would a passport survive that?

    But, that said, believing 9/11 happened with governmental connivance doesn’t change anything one way or the other. We know that the government fabricated a fictitious story in order to attack Iraq, so we know they lie. So, why wouldn’t they lie about what happened on 9/11? Knowing for certain that it was orchestrated wouldn’t change much anyway. No one is going to be prosecuted, that is for sure. Too many people would have had to have been involved for that to happen.

    Probably the real story will come out in 50 years or so, when it longer matters. In the meantime, it is just another one of those things that we will never know, about which people will always have different opinions. But, that said, it is refreshing to be able to at least discuss it!.

    • 50 years! Hope not. We need to force it into mainstream discourse long before that. Like tomorrow. Pester your MP with material about 9/11, local papers, everywhere you can think of.
      This event defines our enslavement, most aspects of global dysfunction, our recent murderous history and WILL define our destiny (in a very bad way) if we do not make every effort to confront the issue in public.

      • William Savory says

        I suspect that people are going to believe what they want to. That is the problem with trying to convince anyone about something like this. And, even if many people do accept that the official narrative is not true, what then? If the people in power did such a thing, they are certainly not going to prosecute themselves. It is a kind of pointless pursuit of truth with no hope of resolution or even justice. Maybe that is why so people don’t want to go there. But, I like to know the truth just for the sake of it, which is probably true for others as well, which is why some of us like to read and think about such things, whereas others don’t, for their own reasons.

        • When the weight of awareness or feeling in society at large becomes significant enough then consequences become inevitable … much like the collective malaise and resentment of the political class resulted in the Brexiters vote. Those who understand the significance of this issue and the lies we have been told about it must keep pushing.

        • “And, even if many people do accept that the official narrative is not true, what then?”

          The people who are of the greatest use to the machinations of power are usually the brightest among us. Being bright does not inoculate a person against being manipulated into serving purposes running against the grain of his or her moral allegiances. If such a person can be brought around to seeing through the grand manipulations, he or she isn’t as likely to become a patsy in causes not his or her own. Intelligent people, although every bit as susceptible to being propagandized as the next person, are more likely to be enticed out of their mainstream orthodoxy if presented with “evidence” grounded in solid research, both scholarly and scientific.

          Now multiply one such individual by a thousand and then by a hundred thousand, and so on: do you have a more biddable cadre of white collar professionals or one that is less? The more aware people are in collective terms, the greater becomes their potential for resistance. At any rate, those are the lines along which run both my hopes and calculation . . .

          Knowing what you know now about 9/11, would you be more willing to join in “the war on terror,” or less?

          People who are otherwise decent can be hoodwinked into committing the worse of atrocities and crimes. Informed, they are more likely to revolt in the face unconscionable barbarity, and such a revolt is precisely what we need.

          • William Savory says

            I guess my point is that having an opinion as to whether or not 9/11 was an inside job isn’t going to change anything. If even a majority of people think it was, what then? What happens then? I think everyone would agree that there is no way there are going to be any prosecutions for what happened that day.

            • I entirely agree with you on that score, and if that’s what people are hoping for in exposing the deed, they are likely pinning their hopes on something highly improbable. I suppose that for some this kind of makes exposing the deed an exercise in futility and not worth their time or effort. But for me, it isn’t a waste of time and effort, because in expose the deed, we also expose the rot of the system, and in doing that, we are that much closer to bringing it down and replacing it with something more humane, as we all truly deserve.

  21. 9/11 is the myth that ‘Western Civilization’ was attack by the barbarism of the Middle East. It is a vicious slander propagated to enlist the willing complicity of Western citizens in privatizing the whole of the Middle East and handing over that claim of ownership to the corporate elites of what Samir Amin calls ‘The Triad:’ America-Europe-Japan, currently the most powerful capitalist block on the planet. Consequently, if 9/11 is the pivotal myth that underpins “our” collective and self-righteous complicity in the rape, pillage and murder of the Middle East, it needs to be exposed for the grotesque mass delusion that it is, and what better way to proceed in doing that than to educate both ourselves and others about the actual “facts” that have already been ascertained by expert investigators and researchers and prove beyond any reasonable uncertainty the duplicity and moral insanity of the people who rule over us.

  22. Insignificant says

    Thank you for bringing this up. There are massive flaws in the official narrative on 9/11, and the mainstream medias ruthless enforcement of the official version reminds me of the WMD in Iraq propaganda. The fact that the media were so wrong on Iraq but won’t even contemplate questioning their assumptions around 9/11 shows how manufactured the news is.

  23. Jerome Fryer says

    These events have been thoroughly reviewed and studied by those with expertise in engineering disciplines. Investing a minute or so with Google will get you a slew of peer-reviewed papers covering the mode of failure for WTC 1, 2, and 7 as well as consideration for whether these buildings could have been made able to withstand the stresses they were put under. (If that seems like too much work, then you can look for some links here: http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm — check toward the bottom of the page for a list of papers.)

    This is not a case of having to trust an official narrative, and ‘publishing’ anything thrown together by a random opinionator does not make for useful examination of the event. You’re wasting people’s time with works of fiction, while giving ammunition to anyone wishing to attack your websites credibility.

    • Catte says

      You’re doing exactly what I describe elsewhere – trying to reframe the debate as being between solid science on one side and crazy lunatics on the other. You are relying on the supposed ignorance of your audience here since neither NIST nor the 9/11 Commission ever made such a sweeping claim, and NIST has acknowledged it does not have all the answers to this extraordinary and unique event.

      What’s strange is that the PTB feel the need to deny this. Why is the simple fact of unanswered questions here perceived as such a threat?

    • Eric_B says

      Agreed Jerome, it’s all nonsense.

      There’s plenty to talk about with regard to how 9/11 was used by the Bush admin, of course.

      • May we ask – have your read up on both sides of this debate before making this decision?

        • Eric_B says

          Well I did look into it all in the few years following 9/11.

          As spectacular as the collapses were I’m confident they can be explained just by the impacts of the planes + fires.

        • Eric_B says

          I mean look at the way the second plane hit the tower, it just slices right through it and then there’s all the jet fuel burning. It’s a hell of an impact.

          • But Eric, even NIST admits it can’t really explain what happened to the towers that day. They don’t know and neither do we. The problem is the uncertainty itself has become politicised and covered up. We aren’t supposed to discuss the fact that no one knows how the towers fell down, and we are being railroaded by dishonest language into dismissing the uncertainties.

            That’s the problem, and the puzzle. Why can’t the ambiguities be acknowledged anywhere but in the depths of the NIST report? Why this gigantic push to de-legitimise the simple quest for a full explanation?

            • Eric_B says

              High speed very large jets hit the building, causing severe damage to the structure and adding extra weight load.

              Then raging fires weakened the remaining steel supports, resulting in a collapse.

              That’s it.

              • PainedScientist says

                Oh good God, another one. Ok @Eric_b, here it is (again)

                1) Only two of the towers were hit by planes. But all three collapsed at or near free-fall.

                2) the towers were designed to withstand impact from 707s, which are not substantially lighter than 767s.

                3) The fires didn’t rage. They were relatively minor fires already under control before the buildings went down (see the comment by a professional firefighter on this site).

                4) Even if they had “raged” – FIRES DO NOT BRING DOWN STEEL CORE HIGH RISES. Never have before, never have since.

                5) Asymmetrical damage can’t produce symmetrical collapse of a building in its own footprint. That usually takes planning and carefully-placed demolition charges. In fact it has ALWAYS required carefully-placed demolition charges to achieve that, apart from this one time on 9/11 when, allegedly, it just happened by chance.

                6) NIST has failed to explain these puzzles and contradictions. It even admits in its own report it can’t explain WTC7’s free-fall, and can’t explain how office fires managed to heat steel to a point of losing a terminal amount of strength, and can’t explain how asymmetrical damage produced a neat symmetrical collapse. It recognises that fire is not a good explanation, but refuses to consider anything else.

                Refuses to consider. Period.

                So, you have two choices.

                1) believe the fake certitudes sold to you in the media you know is dishonest and controlled and which is not even backed up by the official report that is full of holes and knows it.

                2) join the chorus pf people who say “no, we don’t buy this and we want more information.”

                • Eric_B says

                  You can easily see how they’d collapse so fast. When you have 20 or more floors of the structure collapsing on the floor below the weight is so great the supports won’t last more than milliseconds.

                  Of course fires can bring down the building when in combination with major structural damage and added weight load from the plane debris.

              • @Eric_B No, that’s not it. For all the reasons that are clearly admitted by NIST in its own report, and all the reasons given by the thousands of professional scientists, engineers, architects, firefighters and pilots who have criticised NIST’s findings. Claiming certitude doesn’t create certainty where there is none. But you have obviously made up your mind, and you aren’t alone.

                • Eric_B says

                  I’m satisfied that is it. I don’t need a conspiracy theory.

              • BigB says

                Eric_B Thats it?
                A 150 ton plane, shredded on impact added enough extra weight to initiate the symmetric total global collapse of a 100,000 ton structure?
                The 767’s are not substantially larger than a 707; the impact of which the buildings had the design redundancy to withstand.
                The towers suffered 15% (North); 11% (South) damage to the exterior columns; but were designed to withstand a 25% failure.
                The aviation fuel was mostly vapourized on impact, and never burnt long enough or hot enough to MELT STEEL.
                (Please refer to my earlier post on this site that you shot down without reading the link)
                The ‘raging’ fires were oxygen starved – hence the black smoke.
                O, and one building suffered only minor damage; wasn’t even hit by a plane – but still managed to collapse!
                I could go on, but in short, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts – which are weak and uninformed.

                • Eric_B says

                  BigB September 11, 2016
                  A 150 ton plane, shredded on impact </>

                  It wasn’t shredded though was it, not until it had sliced through most of the building.

                  I am not saying the extra weight of the plane was all that significant but it didn’t exactly help.

                • Eric_B says

                  BigB September 11, 2016
                  The ‘raging’ fires were oxygen starved – hence the black smoke.

                  Bullshit, the heat was extreme, that was why so many people jumped to their deaths.

                  • The heat was not hot enough to melt steel, NIST say this in their report. No more than 800-1000deg, possibly substantially less.

              • deschutes says

                I feel sorry for anybody engaging you in this debate. Why? Your willful ignorance of such basics as the burning temp of jet fuel (650 F.) vis a vis the temp at which steel melts (2500 F.), a HUGE difference. I don’t know why others waste time spoon-feeding you elementary info on why the official explanation is a fraud. I certainly wouldn’t.

            • Jerome Fryer says

              NIST explain exactly what they consider happened, but don’t attribute specific causality. They know that the impact and subsequent fire (started by the jet fuel) caused the towers to collapse, and also pinned down the probable critical failure point that brought down WTC 7.

              Quoting, one again:

              “6. What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

              Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.”

              • Loop Garou says

                It didn’t explain. It offered a theory, and didn’t submit enough scientifically verifiable data to support it.

                Considering its models rely on steel developing 0 thermo-conductivity simply to permit sufficient localised heating to induce failure, some sort of explanation is indeed required. But then how do you explain an assumption that steel can’t conduct heat?

                • Jerome Fryer says

                  Based on the general level of understanding displayed by the people posting their articles on the ‘truther’ websites, my guess is that the claim about heat conduction is a failure to understand what they were reading.

      • Moriarty's Left Sock says

        Nonsense? A totally unique event occurred on 9/11. Previous to that time and after that time no steel-supported high-rise building has ever – ever ever – collapsed completely due to fire.

        So when the official government explanation for the three collapses on 9/11 is “fire” they need to have really good evidence, right? Because they are claiming that something happened that was previously considered impossible through physics and observation. You need really really good data to support such a claim.

        But they don’t have really good data, as even the government agencies admit. They have not come near proving fire caused these collapses. How can it be nonsense to say we need more evidence before we accept the fire hypothesis? How is it nonsense to ask for an official enquiry into the findings of explosives in the trade center dust?

        Wake up man.

        • Eric_B says

          A lot of what happened that day was unique. The size of the planes, the speed of the planes, the amount of jet fuel.

          All of them very bad things for the structure.

        • Eric_B says

          And no explosives were found in the dust. That’s just more nonsense.

          • There is a peer-reviewed paper by career-physicists from around the world that claims to have found evidence for un-ignited thermite, or nanothermite in the dust from the WTC. It’s been replicated by experiment.

            Thermite is used in cutter charges as part of controlled demolition.

            • Eric_B says

              You know what thermite is? It’s just iron oxide and aluminium.

              Both would likely be present in the debris. Planes (and other things) are mostly made of aluminium and there would have been plenty of iron oxide from newly exposed rusty rebar from the pulverised reinforced concrete, to cite one possible source.

              That’s if the claims of finding this combination of basic chemicals are even genuine.

              • Well, Eric_B, it seems that you know more about what ought to have been found in the dust of the debris than Harrit et al.

                Could you explain to us the origins of the “elemental iron” in the WTC dust and not that of the “iron oxide?”

                Do “cite” for us the scientific literature that proves that “elemental iron” in this context is both to be expected and not necessarily a signature byproduct of thermitic reaction.

                And I’m just curious: you studied chemistry at what University?

                • Eric_B says

                  Obviously you are going to have a load of iron in the debris since iron in the form of steel is everywhere in the structure.

                  I would have thought that went without saying to be honest.

                  • Actually, Eric, it does not go without saying. The elemental iron that we are talking about is on the scale of nano-particles in the shape of beautiful little spheres. These little iron spheres have never…ever… ever…. ever… been observed in the absence of a thermitic reaction, nor is there a chemical recipe anywhere that has ever been concocted or conceived to produce these spherules that isn’t a thermitic reaction.

                    So if that is true and Neils Harrit et al. and chemists in general aren’t talking out of their arses, then how can we explain that niggling microscopic pressence of iron spherules at a crime scene where three buildings have collapsed? Unless, of course, the scholarship of chemists in general is just a pile of hogwash, eh.

                • Okay, Eric, lets play a little game that we will call, can you spot the difference:

                  In picture A) we have:

                  I’ve never heard of him or read his report.

                  In picture B) we have:

                  But all he found was what you’d expect to find, aluminium and iron oxide aka thermite.

                  Question: is this one person speaking or two? I mean, if you only had those two pictures to go by, what would a reasonable person be tempted to conclude? And then if the reasonable person was told that both pictures are actually the pieces of a single utterance spoken all in one breath, what then might that reasonable person want to conclude about the person who had thus spoken?

              • What kind of comment is this? Professor Steven Jones found tiny spheres of nanothermite distributed throughout all collected WTC dust samples his team collected after 9/11. You are an ignoramus promoting lies about most important information that (at the very least) you have not bothered to investigate for yourself.
                If you keep posting laughable boll*x then you identify yourself as yet another one of a very retinue of familiar schmucks.

                • Eric_B says

                  Perhaps he found something, I’ve never heard of him or read his report.

                  But all he found was what you’d expect to find, aluminium and iron oxide aka thermite.

                • Eric_B says

                  By the way is ‘nano thermite’ even a thing?

                  I’ve seen normal thermite burn and it burns plenty fast.

                  Don’t see why you need super fine ‘nano’ powders.

              • PainedScientist says

                Just read the damn paper. What’s the point in coming here claiming “there’s no evidence” when you can’t even be bothered to read what is out there? If you’ve never heard of Jones and the thermite paper you are definitely not informed enough to comment.

                And no they didn’t just pick up lumps of iron and aluminum and say “duh hey guys, – thermite!”. Nuclear physicists don’t usually operate on that level, did you know? They found red-gray chips in the dust that seemed to be composed of a ferrous layer and some form of compound that reacted with massive energy when heated and left a residue identical to that left by a thermitic reaction.

                Read the paper. But we all know you won’t. will you.

                • Eric_B says

                  PainedScientist September 11, 2016
                  They found red-gray chips in the dust that seemed to be composed of a ferrous layer and some form of compound that reacted with massive energy when heated and left a residue identical to that left by a thermitic reaction.

                  So these scientists were unable to analyse the ‘compound’ to find out what it was?

                  Yeah, sounds legit.

                  What a load of bollocks.

    • Dear Jerome,

      Anyone may now get a sense of just how reliable you are as a source of information simply by reading the many ‘claims’ and attributions that you have made about what others have said or written in the comment sections of the few 9/11 posts that OffG has already put up, ‘claims’ that were shown to be either willful fabrications (that is, out and out “lies”) or at best the patent confabulations of a neurotic.

      But readers coming here for the first time shouldn’t take my word for it; they should take a bit of their precious time and go and have a look for themselves before plunging into the morass of misdirection and misinformation to which Jerome, here, would have you go to school yourself on 9/11.

      • Jerome Fryer says

        Interesting that this sort of comment doesn’t get censored by the admins.

        Are they angling for a job at The Graun?

        • We have repeatedly offered you space to post refutations of the science published here. The offer’s still open. You just prefer to snipe covertly it seems.

          • Jerome Fryer says

            So your response to pointing out a content free ad hominem is an ad hominem? Interesting.

            Hey, here’s an idea: I found an independent attempt at duplication the ‘nano-thermite’ hypothese of Harrit et al by some painstaking and extensive Google searching. Well, about a half minute or so of effort. How is it that you can’t find it?

            • “I found an independent attempt at duplication the ‘nano-thermite’ hypothese of Harrit et al by some painstaking and extensive Google searching. Well, about a half minute or so of effort. How is it that you can’t find it?”

              Jerome is polishing his game. He now uses a hook and bait. He hopes that someone will, without trying to look, call “bullshit” on his find, and he will then pull it out of his sleeve to devastating effect. What he perhaps doesn’t know it that his purported “find” has been rebutted and, dare I say, refuted by the 9/11 community of “scientists” — if, that is, the “mystery” study to which he is referring is the one I vaguely recall.

              As a “researcher,” you begin to show a little promise, Jerome. Keep it up. I mean that most sincerely, eh.

              • Jerome Fryer says

                You are implying that you have ‘read both sides’, so you must therefore have come across at least one of the dismissals of Harrit et al. If not, then you have engaged in exactly what you are accusing dissenters to your editorial slant on this subject of doing.

                Again: if every claim, no matter how absurd, is to be given a platform then do you intend to have a ‘flat Earth’ article series? If not, then you are making some judgement calls about credibility. The ‘truther’ movement fails the credibility tests of science, as does ‘flat Earth’, ‘Moon landing hoax’, ‘lizard people’, the various anti-Semitic conspiracy theories being promoted in these comments, and latterly ‘climate change hoax’.

                Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be given credibility.

                • Good lord Jerome – post a link to the rebuttal already, we’ve asked you enough times!

                • “If not, then you are making some judgement calls about credibility. ”

                  Yes, indeed. A person’s credibility is a measure of how far we may trust the assertions made by that person without in every instance having to verify the accuracy of his or her statements.

                  If the person is without credibility, then everything he says may be discounted until followed up; if the person has a proven track record of both accuracy and honesty in his or her utterances, then it isn’t necessary to “verify” everything they say, which isn’t to say that they get everything ‘right,’ but one has an established basis to begin to trust what they say because one has spent some time investigating and “judging” their credibility, eh.

                  At the moment, your credibility seems to be in question, Jerome.

        • Dear Jerome,

          Do you deny that it may be demonstrated that a person is either a) lying or b) making things up, without being able know whether the person is just lying or just making things up? Now I don’t know if you are deliberately and consistently pushing “claims” that you know to be false, with the emphasis, here, on “deliberately.” If this is the case, then the word to describe what you are doing is “lying.” Do feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
          If, on the other hand, you don’t “deliberately” but yet consistently push “claims” that can be shown to be false, then you are someone who “fabricates” things he imagines to be true, or maybe even knows to be false, but “compulsively” puts it out there anyway. If the latter is the case, then your behavior falls into a category that any psychologist would characterize as “neurotic.” Since you do in “fact” behave in the manner I have just described, nothing I have written can be said to be gratuitously “ad hominem,” as you imply, eh.

          Shall I retrieve examples from previous strings of comments to “corroborate” my statement?

  24. Inadvertently, today’s Independent revealed an important insight into how much Bush knew about who was behind 9/11 on the actual day of the attacks. Or who he had already lined up to take the fall.

    In what amounts to little more that puff piece designed to show how brave and decisive the Commader in Chief of the United States Armed Forces was immediately after receiving the news of the attack, we are treated to some notes his press secretary Ari Fleischer jotted down in the heat of the moment. Apparently.

    According to Mr Fleischer’s “… hastily written notes – released to the Reuters press agency” for most of the day Bush appears not to know who was behind 9/11 with the following remarks:

    “When we find out who did this, they’re not going to like me as president. Somebody’s going to pay.”

    “I can’t wait to find out who did it.”

    “I don’t want whoever this is holding me outside Washington.”

    But then, amazingly enough, right at the end of the article this little gem pops up:

    After being told his two daughters and his wife Laura had been taken to secure locations, Mr Bush asked: “Barney?”
    (Barney, was his dog,a Scottish Terrier)

    “He’s nipping at the heels of Osama bin Laden now,” replied Mr Card, his chief of staff.

    So how on earth did his chief of staff suddenly know Osama bin Laden was behind the attack at a time Bush claimed not to?

    Read the entire article here:


    • Moriarty's Left Sock says

      I’m preeeetty sure Bush and his entourage went missing for a few hour after 9/11. Flew off in Airforce One and no one in the media at least knew where. Webster Tarpley in his book about 9/11 theorizes a rogue government cabal pulled off the attacks and Bush and his inner circle were basically victims of a coup by Cheney and the PNAC crowd. That’s why Bush vanished, trying to hide from the plotters in case he was next. So Tarpley says anyhow.

  25. the pair says

    i’m guessing – and may well be wrong – that “paul” is a millennial since they seem to think the world began the minute they were born and any attempt to address the period before that is greeted with “whatever grandpa”. 15 years is a blip on the radar screen of modern history and barely perceptible in the sceme of overall human history.

    don’t think events from the past are worth discussion? ask any palestinian (outside of the vichy west bank types) if the balfour declaration or the nakba are worth thinking about. funny too how some people think 9/11 is old news but will drop the holocaust into any conversation that sways from the allowed “israelis are born victims” narrative. tell anyone is kashmir to “just forget the partition of india and pakistan – that’s totes old news and you’re just encouraging microaggressions, brah!”

    another example of why western culture is on the downslope. not that we need one.

    • the pair says

      *scheme. also *in kashmir. oh crappy laptop keyboard, you scamp!

      • 4foxandhare says

        Happens to me all the time. Notwithstanding your typos, I appreciated your comment – it sums things up very nicely.

  26. Well stated . We must continue to question more . I myself am part of the category of people who have noted the blatant shift to the right in our society since 1979. The looting of the public purse for the benefit of 86000 elitist. Fascism is hear and alive the finacialisation of every aspect of our society in the west is glaringly obvious.
    Wesley Clarke blew their whole scheme open and showed its true intent. Since 2007 the western economies r on virtual stand still. Exposing the lies and the deception of 9/11 and then observing the consequences of such events . Facts speak louder then words.
    IE: Africom another Washington consensus initiative and viola we start hearing about a new takfiri group called Boko Harem. How coincidental that the Washington Consensus entering Africa in its offical umbrella name Africom ,new terrorist fringe groups arrive fully supplied and armed with pickup trucks and t-72 tanks and Abrahams tanks.
    Yeah and I believe in the tooth fairy. Corporatocrocies are emerging allover the western style countries.
    The economic disparity between the 99 percent and the 86000 individuals has never been so great since the Guilded age.

  27. The establishment don’t want the 9/11 event to be forgotten as it is useful to drag it out from time to time as a casus belli or an excuse for implementing draconian policies.

    However, they don’t want the event to be investigated in depth and they have taken if not a Stalinist attitude then at least a McCarthyist one toward people who ask penetrating questions or who refuse to accept official answers.

    On that score alone, regardless of who “did” 9/11 and how, it is perfectly reasonable an appropriate for academics, intellectuals, journalists and members of the general public to continue asking questions and seeking to separate face from fiction concerning this subject. Anyone who finds this boring is perfectly free not join in.

  28. Actually I think it is very useful that you are publishing this stuff. I first found out about your website when a very respected Marxist academic in England posted a link to one of your articles. This guy disagrees with me on Syria but appreciates my writings on the Brenner thesis. I assume that none of you have a clue what that is about but it has to do with the origins of capitalism, a subject of some interest to Marxists. Anyhow, this guy would be appalled by this 9/11 conspiracy stuff as was Alexander Cockburn and every serious Marxist in the world would be. So, to conclude, I am grateful that you are allowing your true colors to fly. It helps draw the line between Infowars, Global Research, Moon of Alabama and you on one side and those who take their Marxism seriously on the other.

    • It might surprise you Louis but being accused of not taking our Marxism seriously isn’t necessarily as massive an insult as your apparently rather narrow experience would lead you to suppose. We’re not really enthused by abstract theories of the kind that seek to override experiential, scientific and veridical reality for no purpose than to stultify genuine understanding and replace it by rote-learining of barren, unproductive and useless tropes. Your “Marxism” (if that’s what it is) seems to have done little for you beyond inoculating you against reason, logic and basic common sense.

      Been reading the 9/11 discussion you were rash enough to get involved in. Oh my, has one man ever been handed his own rear end so often for so little reward? You were very wise to retreat from the field when you did. 🙂

    • Are there any serious Marxists left in the world? Well, I suppose there is no point in taking your Marxism light-heartedly unless it is Marxism of the Groucho, Chico or Harpo kind.

      And are there still some very respected Marxist academics left in Blighty? Glad to hear it. You might care to ask your friend if he sees any parallels between contemporary 9/11 “trutherism” and Karl Marx’s “conspiracy theorizing” over the career of Louis Bonaparte, who was fingered by Marx as the man behind the June 1848 massacre of 3000 trapped Parisian workers? Or did he perhaps just let it happen on purpose?

      Every page of The Eighteenth Brumaire concerns undercover machinations among various political contenders for power in France. “The account of revolution Marx gave in The Eighteenth Brumaire… contrasted with the conviction he had displayed from The German Ideology to The Class Struggles in France, that the nature of society and its relationship to politics were becoming increasingly visible on the surface of events in the nineteenth century” (Seigel 1978: 203). The most prominent motif from the start is the conscious intent of Bonaparte, along with his military allies and lumpenproletarian enforcers, to bring about, by whatever covert means, the replacement of democratic rule in France with a proto-fascist dictatorship dedicated above all to preserving bourgeois relations of production. Although we now take this conspiracy for granted, given the persuasiveness of Marx’s account, it was hardly the conventional view of the period. As Marx points out, one of the most influential voices of the time, the London Economist, portrayed Louis Bonaparte as a staunch defender of parliamentary governance who, against his better judgment, was forced by events beyond his control to seize the helm. Marx’s chronology of parliamentary seizure relies on a sophisticated and then-unrivaled appreciation of complex social class forces at work in France, but the dark, conspiratorial figure of Bonaparte is an overwhelming presence concomitant with the cowardice of various factions among the republican bourgeoisie.


      • Oh, no! I guess that even Marx is not a Marxist, then. Oh, but wait, I remember hearing him say as much in a conversation I overheard him having with Engels in a bar just the other day just down the street from where I live:

        Marx: “The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte was the first attempt to apply the new conception of history to a series of facts contained within precise limits of time. It is extremely difficult to rise for the apparent movement to the real movement of history and to discover their intimate connection . . .”

        Engels: “Yes, yes, of course, and he doesn’t have a clue about how history unfolds, and not to say that obtuseness can be overambitious, but he is now going to tell us all about the “true” origins of capitalism, by substituting an abstract theory about history for an actual study of events. Did you get a chance to read the 9/11 discussion currently happening in the comment section of the 9/11 posts over at OffG?”

        Marx: “Yes, yes, I did, and a perfect example of the point you are making. “Facts” mean nothing at all to him; reality “is” what he imagines it to be . . .”

        Engels: “He proclaims himself to be a “serious” Marxist, in the way that that Chomsky fellow differentiates between what is “serious” and not. Do we have a name for these “so called Marxists?” If you come up with one, do let me know.”

        Marx: “Ce qu’il y a de certain c’est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste!”

      • Well, clearly there are conspiracies. For example, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a “false flag” that helped to precipitate the escalation of the war in Vietnam. But in the absence of a class analysis, it is difficult to understand the wars in Indochina. For example, Ho Chi Minh received weapons and training from the OSS–something that would have automatically led to the conclusion that he was a puppet of the USA, not to speak of his frequent invocation of the desire to follow the example of the 1776 American Revolution in Vietnam. It also does not address the role of the USSR in selling out the Vietnamese after the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu. Nor does it tell us anything about the neoliberal turn of the Vietnamese CP in recent years. In fact that is the sort of discussion that you will never find in a website exclusively devoted to the search for “false flags”, a rather sterile endeavor that is the hallmark of limited erudition.

        • Dear Louis,

          Can you help me understand the significance of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as a ‘false flag,’ in “class analytical terms?” In what you’ve just written, for whatever reason, it doesn’t really leap out at me.

        • How does your tardy acknowledgement that false flags are a real entity jive with your previous rather clumsy attempts at mockery of those who entertain the idea any given current event might be a false flag?

          Do feel free to ignore or misconstrue the question if it makes it easier for you.

    • deschutes says

      Why are you bragging about your marxist background, marxist associates and and your academic thesis under this article about 9-11? Doesn’t make any sense. That you brag about your thesis and say “I assume none of you have a clue what that is” comes across as incredibly arrogant and clueless. Who cares about your thesis, least of all here?

      • Jen says

        Deschutes: it’s obvious that without his beloved pseudo-Marxist analytical tools and telling everyone about them, the troll is incapable of independent thought.

      • Because I am challenging you people ideologically. I understand why you would resent my presence here. Nobody likes to have their ideology challenged. When people begin posting defenses of Bashar al-Assad on my blog, I resent it as well. But that’s what the Internet is useful for–allowing free and open debates. Any time that the people who run this website decide to block me, I’ll understand why. To their credit they do not censor my comments, even though just about everybody here would support blocking me.

        • OK. let’s get into “class analysis”. Who are the ruling class across the western world and why do our wars consistently only benefit two parties … international financiers and the State of Israel?
          Who do you think these people are and why does Marxism address these issues in an abstract rather than a much more specific manner?
          Disraeli, a Jew converted to Christianity himself, said in ‘Coningsby’ that Jews had taken over all the heights of power in the UK in the mid-1800’s.
          Is the continuous public racket about the evils of ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘The Holocaust’ about intimidating us all from mentioning the fact that nothing much appears to have changed over the past 170 years? If Jewish power, wealth and influence is massively disproportionate to their numbers (which it is) is it fair to conclude that this group is a RACIST group and our anti-racist obsession is probably socially engineered in the UK to serve the purposes of this racist group and has sweet FA to do with creating a fairer and more equal society?

          The cultural Marxist thinkers that invented the culture under which we labour were nearly all Jews. Is the identity and equality politics that dominates us really all about equality.
          The rich never stop getting disproportionately richer. Maybe this is all about what is good for them

          By the way, 9/11 will always matter and the prime suspect is Israel/Mossad. All evidence points directly in their direction.

          Hope this helps.

        • Dear Louis,

          There is nothing I enjoy more than having my “ideology” challenged. That is to say, if it really is being challenged. On this score, do make an effort to to tone down your self-flattery.

          And please, if others resent your presence, I want you to know that I am rather beginning to take a liking to you. What I find most endearing about you is your seeming total lack of self-awareness, of being unable to perceive the persona that you project into what you commit to print and publicly, unless, of course, it is a deliberate contrivance, in which case you are a fucking genius, and what’s not to admire about genius, eh.

          And you can take this to the bank, Louis: if ever OffG ever decides to block you, I’ll be the first to protest loudly on my own behalf, for having had half of my reasons for scouting over here to spend what are quickly becoming for me delightful moments in the company of the project that goes by the name of Louis Proyect.

          Trust me, you will be famous one day, if you aren’t already.

    • Jerome Fryer says

      Try “Russia Insider” for an insight into how the unconcerned with facts type of people do their thing on the ‘other side’ of the latest Russia scare.

      I am unsure how representative the editorial process or post commenters may be, but it would be reasonable to assume that they’re part of the more educated classes. Many commenters would be younger, and thus educated in the post-Soviet system.

      (I also find it interesting that the old propaganda of ideology has been retained in the present conflict between ‘Western’ elites and Russian elites — the ‘West’ is studiously ignoring the actual change to capitalist ideology and using ‘red-baiting’ propaganda, whilst Russia is continuing the Soviet approach of ‘Western moral decay’. If the idiots in charge weren’t so dangerous to us all it would be highly amusing.)

  29. Neil MacLeod says

    Bye bye Paul, hope the door didn’t smack your arse too hard… on your way back to dreamland.

    Off-G… keep on with your refreshingly fearless journalism.

  30. There is an army of hasbara trolls out there attacking any mention of 9/11. They’ve been on this job for years. The article below covers the issue from a different perspective, but the truth is that 9/11 kick-started all the wars the west is fighting against perceived threats to israel. Israel is massive implicated in the events of 9/11 from lowy and Silverstein buying the WTC 50 days before 9/11 and double-insuring it against terrorist attacks, to the dancing Israelis to Ehud Barak putting the blame on Osama Bin Laden in a BBC TV studio before the towers even collapsed to … the list is very long

    The article says that a small number of british controlled India and asks if western countries like the USA and the UK are, in reality, Imperial lackeys of Israeli-led international financiers. Are we occupied territitory owned by an enemy within that would much rather we did not pursue awkward questions about the events of 9/11.

Comments are closed.