Skeptical bias against 9/11 Truth?

StooBradley
YouTube.com
September 12, 2009

A clip from a panel discussion about skeptical thinking answers whether there is a bias against sensitive political topics, namely 9/11. I got both good and bad responses. I'll let you decide for yourself.

Related Info:

Dear skeptics, this link should get you up to speed:

9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review

Debunking Scott Creighton's Debunking of Nano-Thermite

In a recent post entitled "Niels Harrit is a Weasel. He’s the Back-Stabbing Fredo of the Truth Family," Scott Creighton, AKA willyloman, calls Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University a "disinfo specialist, red-chip peddling, snake oil salesman." Now for those who don't know, Neils Harrit is a Professor of Chemistry, expert in nano-chemistry, and one of nine scientists who in April of this year found unignited explosive residues in dust from the WTC disaster on 9/11. Specifically, they found a nano-engineered variant of the incendiary thermite, that when heated exerted an energy/volume yield exceeding that of explosives commonly used in demolitions.

Creighton starts his critique by stating that there is no way that the required amounts of nano-thermite could have been snuck into the Towers, and by bashing the plausibility of 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman's Hypothetical Blasting Scenario. However, he makes no mention of a paper written by one of the nine scientists to make the discovery entitled "Demolition access to the WTC Towers."

Matt Sullivan of the RockCreekFreePress points out the important aspects of the paper:

Sol-gels of nano-thermites are described in the literature as being very stable and safe to handle in liquid form. They can be applied to surfaces by spray or even paintbrush. It is entirely possible that the explosives were applied to the building disguised as a paint or as a spray-on fireproofing.

Researcher Kevin Ryan has previously published a paper (Journal of 9/11 Studies) noting the extreme coincidence that the floors in the towers where structural failure was initiated exactly correspond to the floors where fireproofing had recently been 'upgraded' in 1999 and 2000." (See diagram)

Next Creighton childishly tells these investigators what they need to be doing:

Hey Steven and Neils, I got an idea: why not test for the exact kind of explosive residue that the controlled demolition industry ACTUALLY USES? Hey, there’s a concept. You know, the kind of tests that NIST and FEMA report that they DIDN’T run? The kind of test that you yourselves also admit you DIDN’T run? The kind of test I specifically ASKED you to run, not once but TWICE now in private communications? And the VERY kinds of tests you yourselves suggest SOMEONE ELSE RUNS in your recent bullshit "thermetic material" paper?

You know, THOSE tests. That’s an idea, huh? The kind of tests that Greg Roberts (one of the authors of the nanothermite paper) told me in an email that he DIDN’T want to run because a negative result might hurt the Truth movement. Those tests.

By pointing out that NIST and FEMA didn't run tests for conventional explosives Creighton insinuates that this must be the line of inquiry where the real truth lies, but that knife cuts both ways.

As pointed out by the group FireFightersFor911Truth, "The National Fire Protection Association very clearly states melted steel or concrete is a sign of exotic accelerants. (both have been documented in the WTC debris) Therefore, the debris should have been thoroughly analyzed for exotic accelerants, specifically Thermite.”

And in NIST's 2006 Q&A paper they stated that they didn't test for any type of explosives, conventional or otherwise.

"Q: Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

A: NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

Speaking of questions, did Gregg Roberts give you permission to print something from a private email Mr. Creighton? Because if not, my dictionary says right here that a "backstabbing weasel" is someone who publishes a private comment in a public place without permission, especially if it's done with a destructive tone.

That being said, Mr. Roberts has every reason to be concerned that tests for conventional explosives might yield negative results. These are clearly demolitions, but they are also clearly deceptive in nature; they were made to look as if they were caused by plane impacts and fire. Furthermore, no det cord, which would leave unmistakable chemical evidence, was found in the rubble. For these and many more reasons distributed conventional explosives do not seem to be the best candidate. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence for the use of thermite. In addition, the use of thermobaric devices would fit the bill perfectly as well, particularly due to the fact that they leave no explosive residues. So, what would you choose as a conspirator? Nanotechnolgy that practically nobody has heard of combined with thermobarics that don't leave a trace, or detectable conventional explosives?

All that being said, when Kevin Ryan was asked on the visibilty911 podcast if anyone had looked for evidence of conventional explosives he stated that, "we've been talking about it, but no. I think the best thing to do is start testing for RDX, HMX, and those sorts of things in the WTC dust... That's the next step that we're looking at now."

So you may get you wish at some point Mr. Creighton, but it certainly won't be because of your hateful diatribe.

Next, Creighton inserts a video I put together into his article, take a look...


The funny thing is the video debunks the idea he raises after its insertion that, "the red/grey chips ARE paint, with a slightly different chemical make-up that what was used on the columns, and from the OTHER location that had red painted steel in the Twin Towers… the TRUSSES."

I have to wonder if he watched it all the way, or if he just didn't pay attention. Trusses, columns, it doesn't matter! The video clearly demonstrates a multitude of reasons that these chips are not paint of any variety.

Finally, Creighton briefly mentions one of the many examples of supporting evidence for the use of thermite, he states:

What you DON’T see is the TRUSSES. The THOUSANDS of STEEL trusses are missing. Why? Because when the HIGH EXPLOSIVES that were placed under the floors and inside the TRUSS systems, was ignited, the 4,000 degree plus temperatures MELTED the TRUSSES and PULVERIZED the concrete floors of the towers.

That is why some of the red/grey chips are attached to the iron-rich micro-spheres; because they were BOTH created at the SAME TIME.

As Jim Hoffman has pointed out, the Thermitic Material paper analyzes iron-rich spheres from three different sources: residue from the ignition of commercial thermite, residue from the ignition of the red-gray chips found in the WTC dust, and the spheres found by themselves in the dust. Take a look for yourself; they are almost indistinguishable, or "strikingly similar" as the paper puts it. The chips creating molten-iron spheres is itself evidence of a high temperature chemical reaction, which would not happen if they were just chips of paint.

Once you realize that you are wrong on this issue Mr. Creighton, you will realize that we already have the evidence you seek. The real questions are, how do we break through the media censorship, and get people in positions of power to do something. Won't you join us in looking for the answers? If not, then you need to take the advice found in one of the comments on your article.

"The way you dispute a juried paper with solid science is to produce another juried paper with better science that shows reproducible evidence that the first one is wrong and why."