The reason I say this is because certainly we have pictures of Iron Oxide and aluminum that was combined in a sol-gel. But has anyone demonstrated that it either burns or explodes? I don't see where that has ever even been tried, even in the laboratory basic research stage.

You guys than play the "evidence" gam all you want. It is an endless loop going nowhere because the real evidence was hauled off an melted down, and you know it. We have evidence enough that these traitors did all they could to cover up and evade. Grounds for reopening the investigation. That's when the real "evidence" will ome forward as whistleblowers.
Now, what is it we do with traitors?

from 911hardfacts.com


The mother of them all. The one people cite all the time, saying that surely a 'bi-partisan/neutral' Congressional Committee would have uncovered any 'conspiracy plot'. This is an understandable theory and sentiment. But if we look at the record, we see that this Commission was a complete and utter whitewash. This is a committee that Cheney and Bush vigorously fought from being formed for well over a year. Why would the President and the Vice President resist the formation of a bi-partisan investigation into what is surely one of the gravest crimes committed against the United States? Committees to investigate Pearl Harbor, Kennedy's assassination, the Challenger disaster, were all formed within one week of the event. And yet Cheney and Bush fought hard to not investigate the events of 9/11 for more than a year. Why?

Even when the Committee was finally formed, it was absurdly under-funded and grossly mis-managed. The 9/11 Commission received a paltry $15 million for their 'investigation'. Compare that to the $40 million given to investigate Bill Clinton's oral sex escapade in the Oval Office 5 years earlier. The Commission was headed by Thomas Kean, director of oil giant Amerada Hess, co-chairman of Homeland Security Project, and a man with strong business ties to Saudis Khalid bin Mahfouz. Hardly a man likely to seriously challenge the Bush/Cheney (fellow oilmen) conclusions hammered into the public's consciousness over the previous year. Moreover, the executive director of the Commission, and the man in charge of determining its use of funds, direction of inquiry, etc., was Philip Zelikow. This is a man who wrote a book with Condaleeza Rice, now acts as one of her senior advisors, was a member of George W. Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and a member of the Bush-Cheney transition team after their first election. The conflicts of interest are glaringly obvious, and Philip Zelikow was hardly the man equipped for the hard-nosed, deliberate investigation 9/11 so deserved. (For a quick general overview of the rest of the Commission and their inherent inability to do any kind of serious, probing investigation, see this link.

As cited many times in this paper, Cofer Black, head of counter terrorism for the CIA, "felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn't want to know about." So it is hardly surprising that the Commission made fatal errors in judgment, ignored whole swaths of evidence, re-arranged facts to fit their working/given narrative, and produced a document that has served only to further confuse and divert a serious investigation into 9/11. Examples are ubiquitous. The Commission, though well aware of a July 10, 2001 meeting between Cofer Black, George Tenet, and Condaleeza Rice in which the CIA officers warned Rice of an impending al-Qaeda attack on American soil, failed to mention this meeting. They failed to mention the Able Danger military operation that had tagged Mohammed Atta as a serious terrorist threat one full year before 9/11. They failed to mention that WTC Building 7, a massive 47-story high-rise in downtown Manhattan that was not hit by any airplane, crumbled to the ground in a neat foot-print at virtually free-fall speed in the exact manner of a controlled demolition because of damage sustained solely from fire - a new discovery about the nature of iron and steel that engineers, wood burning stove owners, and chefs with their expensive steel frying pans across the world would surely be interested in hearing more about. They failed to account for the nature and speed of the Twin Towers' collapse. They failed to mention Norman Mineta's damning testimony of VP Dick Cheney's incriminating behavior in the White House Bunker on the morning of 9/11. They changed FAA response times and military contact narratives. They made up stories of phantom flights, crowded radar screens, and operational chaos within organizations that have air-tight standard operating procedures that, by all other accounts, were strictly adhered to on the morning of 9/11. They refused to listen to oral testimony from NYC firefighters who were present at Ground Zero. The Report lied, contradicted itself, and shaped its narrative through a systematic and continual omission of pertinent facts and evidence.

For a thorough, detailed, academic dismantling of the 9/11 Commission and its Report, see this link.



C. NIST Report

The National Institute of Standards and Technology was a government appointed agency charged with investigating the structural collapse of the World Trade Center. They have been touted as the group of engineers whose work and findings serve to wholly put to rest any notions of a 'conspiracy theory', positing that damage from the impact of the airplanes, and the subsequent fires, led to the scientifically explainable collapse of the Towers. To further this supposition, they first published a 10,000 page report, then a 250 page condensed version. All perhaps geared to look impressive and official from the outside looking in.

But if and when a curious individual actually bothers to read these reports, they will find a 'scientific' investigation that is almost comical in its approach. Most crimes are investigated and solved by collecting evidence, pouring over said evidence, testing all available hypotheses, plugging evidence into said hypotheses, and working from the bottom up to create a sensible narrative and explanation of events. NIST did the exact opposite. Almost no evidence was collected. The steel beams, girders, joists, panels, columns, perimeter plates, flooring, sub-basement material, etc. was quickly gathered, transported to ship yards in and around NYC, cut up, and shipped off to Asia where it was sold for recycling. While some engineers were allowed to 'tour' the site at Ground Zero, virtually NO evidence was collected for the NIST investigation.

In a gross violation of the scientific method, NIST was given a self-evident conclusion by its employers (the Unites States Government) - that 19 Arab hijackers flew airplanes into buildings, fires followed, and buildings collapsed - and they were told to figure out on computer models how this scenario was possible and explainable. What followed was a farcical, top-down investigation - where facts and variables were neatly arranged to reproduce given results. When the building fires in their computer models didn't burn hot enough to soften the Tower's steel, they simply added phantom variables to produce more oxygen and fuel. And like with the 9/11 Commission, all pertinent evidence that contradicted their desired results was simply ignored. For example, when NIST was questioned by certain scientists who discovered that their 10,000 page report STILL did not account for the Towers' impossible rate and method of collapse, NIST responded that their investigation studied the events leading up until the moment the Towers were 'poised for collapse'. Not beyond. Another in a long line of absurd responses that have proven so common to all the 'official' investigations.

There are a number of engineers and researchers who are eminently more qualified to speak to the specific anomalies of the NIST report than I. And I have provided links to their excellent, comprehensive work below. But it is worth mentioning something much simpler, something that can easily and simply undermine any authority NIST and its engineers may once have held. And it is the fact that these NIST engineers, whom defenders of the 'official story' so trust and laud as un-biased and thorough investigators, have now admitted that their first theory, the 'pancake collapse' theory showcased on NOVA, the Discovery Channel, in the NY Times, etc. for more than two years, has been proven wholly unreasonable and beyond scientific probability. NIST, without any sense of responsibility to explain their mistakes, has now simply agreed to scrap their first explanation, and they have moved on to a new 'pile driver' theory to replace their old theory, with all sorts of other fancy computer models, jargon, and convoluted narratives offered as proof. But if their first theory, paraded out with other similar computer graphics and plot lines, has been admitted fictitious and filled with errors, why are we now to believe the new and improved version of the story?