Propaganda vs. Projection: What is really the truth?

As with any writing, the devil is in the proverbial details. The evidence Roberts presents hinges on the theory that nano-thermite caused the devastation at the Twin Towers. Prove that this was not the cause of the destruction and one has to wonder at the motivations of Mr. Roberts.

First the proof:

As noted in the article, Mr. Roberts indicates that traces of nano-thermite were found in the dust from the World Trade Center. Were these dust samples checked for signs of sugar which might indicate that bubblegum was used to take them down? More obviously, were they checked for steel, aluminum, cement, asbestos, or any other material to ensure that this was not used to destroy the towers?

Whether there is a chain of custody trail or not, traces of nano-thermite or any other substance in a dust sample, does not indicate proof of anything. If a gun is found next to a dead body, this does not prove that it was the murder weapon. The proof that nano-thermite was the culprit must be supported by assessment of all of the evidence seen at Ground Zero as documented by thousands upon thousands of pictures as well as physical measurement data. I will list a handful of phenomena seen at Ground Zero. How can nano-thermite as the culprit explain the following?

• Lack of debris. Very little debris (a few pieces of aluminum cladding) fell beyond the street borders of the World Trade Center (WTC) complex. Only a story or two of debris stood where the Twin Towers had been. WTC Building Three (23 floors) was missing, as was all but 2-3 stories of WTC Building Seven. Building Four's main wing was missing and huge empty holes existed in Buildings Five and Six. The subbasements of the towers were damaged but not full of debris. Large open holes are documented in the subbasement areas of the Twin Towers. The bathtub below the subbasements was intact. In other words, millions of tons of debris simply vanished in a matter of seconds. Can nano-thermite or any other form of thermite do this?
• Toasted cars all over lower Manhattan. If the debris did not leave the WTC as evidenced by pictures of the surrounding buildings, how did cars up to a half mile away or more burn or in some manner wilt and delaminate?
• Overturned vehicles seen around the WTC. Pictures show vehicles flipped on their tops next to untouched vehicles with fully leafed trees in the background. The cars couldn't have been blown. How did they turn upside down?
• Lack of evidence of heat anywhere. People covered by the dust near the WTC were unburned. Rescue workers immediately climbed onto the pile in search of victims. Water showered onto the pile to suppress the fuming did not explode and turn to steam. In fact, the fuming went away as water was sprayed, only to return after the water had dried. This is consistent with rain as it fell on the WTC as supported by pictures as well.
• Lack of adequate ground shaking based on the masses of other objects, such as the Kingdome in Seattle.
• Unusual bending, horizontal twisting, and thinning of steel I-beams and box columns
• Evidence of magnetospheric disruption precisely at the time of the events at Ground Zero, including building hole development.
• Unusual window holes found in surrounding buildings. Building facades were undamaged, but windows had punch holes without spider-web impact breakage.
• Unexplained fuming of Tower 1 and Building Seven after the destruction of Tower 2 and after the settling of Tower 2 dust. This fuming only emerged from one face of each building (east).
• Eyewitness accounts that indicated no sound of a plane immediately prior to the explosion in Tower 2, the second tower with a hole. Witnesses may not have seen a plane, but they surely could have heard it roaring in at top speed.
• Pictorial evidence indicating lack of deceleration of the plane entering Tower 2. Frame by frame analysis of the entry indicates that the plane moved the same distance in each frame up to entry of the tail of the plane. What would happen to a stewardess standing in the aisle of a plane if it hit something such as a building? She would fly toward the cockpit, right? The plane decelerates.
• The presence of a massive field-effect emitting hurricane (Erin) off the coast of Manhattan all day on 9/11. This hurricane was unreported by the National Weather Service and local news outlets that day.
• Unburned paper: There was an abundance of unburned paper all over Manhattan and some was even carried over to Brooklyn. The military uses thermite to destroy paper. They use it to quickly destroy secret documents if invaded by the enemy from getting the information. Consider the quote from Mr. Roberts:

� ���"I have asked on several occasions and have never had an answer, which does not mean that there isn't one, how millions of pieces of unburnt, uncharred paper can be floating over lower Manhatten from the destruction of the WTC towers when the official explanation of the destruction is fires so hot and evenly distributed that they caused the massive steel structures to weaken and fail simultaneously so that the buildings fell in free fall time just as they would if they had been brought down by controlled demolition"� �� �

Reworded, Mr. Roberts should have been asking:

� ���"I have asked on several occasions and have never had an answer from Steven Jones, which does not mean that there isn't one, how millions of pieces of unburnt, uncharred paper can be floating over lower Manhattan from the destruction of the WTC towers when Steven Jones' explanation of the destruction involves thermite, which is used by the military to destroy paper. Yes, the military has thermite; they use it to destroy paper. Thermite explosives are used to quickly destroy secret documents for security purposes (e.g. if invaded).� �� �

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).