amazing piece. Looks like you managed to flush one of "them" out Kevin. Prepare to take some flak when you're over the target.. Be safe, be well, and God Bless.

P.S. Someone should ask this Corley if he's ever taken the time to actually OBSERVE and TIME the destruction of the Twin Towers, compare that to the time for absolute free fall in air (about 10 seconds) and then place that observation within the context of Newton's 3 Laws of Motion.. The physical proof is in the actual occurance of destruction, as much as it is in the chemical composition of some dust samples, in fact, it's plain as day, in plain sight. The buildings could not possibly have "collapsed", that's not what occured, not in reality.

Thought Experiment: Free falling safe or grand piano = 10 seconds - Towers utterly destroyed from top to bottom = 13 seconds.

Therefore, since the comparison is between nothing (but air) and the entire remaining length of steel structure, core and perimeter included - the entire process of destruction or "breakage" of every weld and joint and bolt and all the rebar imbedded cement, must and can ONLY occur within the difference ie: within three seconds, for the entire remaining length of structure, in the case of the north tower, about 95 floors...!

One two three

I don't think so.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and, an object in motion will remain in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force of resistence.

There was no loss of momentum, all the way to the ground - and that is utterly absurd, absent the use of explosives blowing out the structure just beneath or below the exploding debris wave. Simple as that.

What's interesting is given the towers sheer HEIGHT, they lend themselves very well to this proof, yet little has been done by actual physicists (in combination with structural engineers) in this regard I just, don't, get it..?

The "smoking gun" is the videos of the destruction of those buildings. David Chandler seems to be the only person who's really worked this aspect - why is that..? It's grade 10 physics, isn't it..? Why no peer reviewed paper on this the near free fall aspect...? I just don't understand how something so obvious cannot lend itself to physics, and be falsifyable, and therefore, UNDEBUNKABLE by physicists, since the laws of physics are inviolate and immutable.

Sorry for rambling, but this point has always driven me bananas, why we haven't been waving this proof in their faces all along, backed by independantly verifyable physical PROOF (as contained in the videos of destruction). I've emailed folks like you Stephen as well as the Architects and Engineers, and still no peer reviewed paper in a respected journal on the mechanics of the occurance of destruction PROVING the use of explosives... why not?!!! Is it just too OBVIOUS, too SIMPLE..?

Corley and Ryan working together.
I'd love to see the video!

And, yes, a book from Kevin would be a prize!

Thank you, Kevin. I've been wondering how they would deal with the nano-thermite research, and the outlines of their strategy now seem to be emerging. They tried ignoring the research, and now they are moving to the next stage, with Corley as leader. It's important that we keep on top of this, so thank you once again for your first rate work.

I would like to see a multi-authored, multi-contributor "coffee table" book with many, many photographs and also a DVD.
The multi-authored contributors concept helps to highlight the credibility, and to also promote the book. (Firefighters, Scientists, Theologian, Architects, Engineers, Family Members, Witnesses, political figures, etc.)

I'm surprised that no one has said anything about some of the new references, but maybe it's just me.

"Element bondings" is not a phrase chemists use. But where would we start with the idea that just these particular elements found in the WTC buildings disassociated from the compounds in which they were stable and somehow formed new and interesting things other than what the analyses indicate? Since there was aluminum and some rainy days, why could we not get a few cans of beer? And with the silicon and oxygen, perhaps a sandy beach. There are numerous possiilities for that carbon-based susbstance in the intimately-mixed, microsphere forming energetic material. So why not something edible, like the mixins for a spicy pizza? We would need to let it levin first, of course.

"Imagine you made a campfire and you add sulfur, wood, phoshor and a bonding component. Would you expect to get a box of matchsticks later in the ash?"

I would characterize this as more of a psychological "war," buttressed by propoganda;

But surely you are correct in sayingi it is NOT an evidence war.

No way, no how.

Why are the psychologists and psychiatrists standing aside? Are they too comfortable making too much money?

Or are they just as terrorized as the general population?

It's my understanding that the platform of the Deepwater Horizon (now very deep) was almost entirely fabricated from aluminum, to prevent sparks that might ignite and explode when exposed to crude oil and gases such as methane. The Deepwater Horizon platform was engulfed by flames for two days before it eventually sunk into the water, without melting the bulk of the aluminum platform structure.

Here is a clear case where aluminum meets a petroleum fire head-on, and holds up fairly well. So much for 'molten aluminum coming from WTC2', Mr. Corley.

Check out the photos:
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?285062-Deliberate-sabotage-suspected-in-Transocean-Deepwater-Horizon-disaster!&s=c57de006b7a456fec5c5a4007b79c48e&p=3121762#post3121762

Good questioning phone call.

Glaring Proof of Something Hotter than an Office Fire in WTC2

I sent this challenge to W. Gene Corley, NIST's John Gross and Shyam Sunder:

I challenge anybody to reproduce the recorded phenomenon of brightly glowing molten metal (or any other material exhibiting a similar appearance) using only materials and conditions reasonably present in World Trade Center Building 2 (WTC2) without assuming the presence of some intentionally placed pyrotechnic material such as thermate.

No response was forthcoming.

Perhaps we should all start sending dust to one-another. Either they will give up on trying to intercept suspected items or they will clearly tip their hand.

This probably means that people who are the real perpetrators of the murder of mass of September 11 2001 are worried. Nevertheless I believe that they are very well protected by the current President of the United States, Barack Obama, which prohibits, for example, a new investigation into the anthrax attacks despite evidence showing that the conclusions of FBI are false. Here are some excerpts from the link entitled "2001 anthrax attacks":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

Quotes:

“Doubts about FBI conclusions

After the FBI announced that Ivins acted alone, many people with a broad range of political views, some of whom were colleagues of Ivins, expressed their doubts.[Reasons cited for these doubts include that Ivins was only one of 100 people who could have worked with the vial used in the attacks,[and that the FBI was unable either to find any anthrax spores at Ivins' house or on his other belongings nor place him near the New Jersey mailbox from which the anthrax was mailed.

Alternative theories proposed include FBI incompetence, that Syria or Iraq directed the attacks, or that similar to some 9/11 conspiracy theories the U.S. government knew in advance that the attacks would occur. Senator Patrick Leahy who is Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and who had received an anthrax-tainted letter, said the FBI has not produced convincing evidence in the case.[The Washington Post called for an independent investigation in the case saying that reporters and scientists were poking holes in the case. On September 17, 2008, Sen. Patrick Leahy told FBI Director Robert Mueller during testimony before his the Judiciary Committee Leahy chairs, that he did not believe Army scientist Bruce Ivins acted alone in the 2001 anthrax attacks, stating: "I believe there are others involved, either as accessories before or accessories after the fact. I believe that there are others out there. I believe there are others who could be charged with murder." To the contrary, Tom Daschle, the other democratic senator targeted, believes Ivins was the sole culprit. Although the FBI matched the genetic origin of the spores to the RMR-1029 culture in Ivins' flask, scientists say the spores have a chemical "fingerprint" that did not match the strain from the flask. The implication is that the spores had been taken out of the flask and grown somewhere else after the culture was created in 1997.

Silicon content too high

The anthrax used in the attacks had silicon, according to the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. The presence of the silicon is the reason why, when the letters to Senators Leahy and Daschle were opened, the anthrax vaporized into an aerosol.

Dr. Richard O. Spertzel, a microbiologist who led the United Nations’ biological weapons inspections of Iraq, wrote that the anthrax used could not have come from the lab where Ivins worked.[ Spertzel said he remained skeptical of the Bureau’s argument despite the new evidence presented on August 18, 2008 in an unusual FBI briefing for reporters. He questioned the FBI's claim that the powder was less than military grade, in part because of the presence of high levels of silica. The FBI had been unable to reproduce the attack spores with the high levels of silica. The FBI attributed the presence of high silica levels to "natural variability."However, this conclusion of the FBI contradicted its statements at an earlier point in the investigation, when the FBI had stated, based on the silicon content, that the anthrax was "weaponized," a step that made the powder more airy and required special scientific know-how.

The FBI lab concluded that 1.4% of the powder in the Leahy letter was silicon. Stuart Jacobson, a small-particle chemistry expert stated that: "This is a shockingly high proportion [of silicon]. It is a number one would expect from the deliberate weaponization of anthrax, but not from any conceivable accidental contamination."

The FBI attempted to defend its conclusion and contracted scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Labs to conduct experiments in which anthrax is accidentally absorbed from a media heavily laced with silicon. The Livermore scientists tried 56 times to replicate the high silicon content, adding increasingly high amounts of silicon to the media. They were unable even to approach the 1.4% level of the actual attack anthrax, with most results an order of magnitude lower and some as low as .001%.

"If there is that much silicon, it had to have been added," stated Jeffrey Adamovicz, who supervised Ivins's work at Fort Detrick.[Adamovicz explained that the silicon in the attack anthrax could have been added via a large fermentor, which Battelle and some other facilities use" but "we did not use a fermentor to grow anthrax at USAMRIID . . . [and] We did not have the capability to add silicon compounds to anthrax spores." Dr. Ivins had neither the skills nor the means to attach silicon to anthrax spores. Richard Spertzel explained that the Fort Detrick facility did not handle anthrax in powdered form. "I don't think there's anyone there who would have the foggiest idea how to do it."

National Academy of Sciences investigation

A 16-member panel of the National Academy of Sciences has been reviewing the scientific work conducted as part of the F.B.I.'s investigation. Dr. Henry S. Heine, a microbiologist who was formerly employed at the Army’s biodefense laboratory in Maryland where Dr. Ivins had worked, told the panel that it was impossible that the deadly spores had been produced undetected in Dr. Ivins’s laboratory, as maintained by the F.B.I. He testified that using the equipment at the army lab, at least a year of intensive work would have been required to produce the quantity of spores contained in the letters, and that such an intensive effort could not have escaped the attention of colleagues. Dr. Heine also told the panel that lab technicians who worked closely with Dr. Ivins have told him they saw no such work. He stated further that where Dr. Ivins worked biological containment measures were inadequate to prevent the Anthrax spores from floating out of the laboratory into animal cages and offices. “You’d have had dead animals or dead people,” Dr. Heine said.

Also: “Colleague Disputes Case Against Anthrax Suspect”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/us/23anthrax.html

Quote:

“Asked by reporters after his testimony whether he believed that there was any chance that Dr. Ivins, who committed suicide in 2008, had carried out the attacks, the microbiologist, Henry S. Heine, replied, “Absolutely not.” At the Army’s biodefense laboratory in Maryland, where Dr. Ivins and Dr. Heine worked, he said, “among the senior scientists, no one believes it.”

President Obama opposes new independent investigation

Congressman Rush Holt, whose district in NJ includes a mailbox from which anthrax letters are believed to have been mailed, was troubled by a number of important questions about the anthrax attacks and the FBI's investigation of it that remain unanswered, and has called for an investigation of the anthrax attacks by Congress or by an independent commission he proposed in a bill entitled the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act (H.R. 1248)[ Other members of Congress have also called for an independent investigation.

President Barack Obama, however, opposes such investigations and such legislation on the ground that they may "undermine public confidence" in the FBI probe and would probably veto a bill that contained an investigation provision.”

I fear that President Obama will also protect the official version of events of September 11, 2001, even if it is false, and that he will prevent a new investigation on the reasons of the collapse of buildings World Trade Center that could prove that the official version is false. I do not see how it could be countered the opposition of U.S. President to a new investigation.

It sure sounds like fun.

That sounds a lot like what the writer Emile Zola did to get the Dreyfus case reopened in the 1890s. By publishing his accusations of a cover-up in a major paper, that led the French government to sue him for libel, and the courts decided it was impossible to arrive at a verdict in that case without reopening the case that was the bone of contention, namely the Dreyfus Affair.

Why don't things work that way anymore? A huge part of the explanation is the consolidation of news media, which are the propaganda arm of the owning class and will ignore statements, even from those whose views on other topics they have previously printed (Paul Craig Roberts, for example), if those statements go against elite interests and the ideologies that sustain them.

There's also the example of E. Howard Hunt suing a publication for insinuating his involvement in the JFK assassination. That lawsuit resulted in testimony which Mark Lane was then able to use to write 'Plausible Denial.' Hunt's old friends at the CIA would probably have preferred he hadn't sued.

Of course, that lawsuit and Lane's subsequent book were nearly thirty years after the event itself. We want something much sooner than that.

with each passing day the media sinks to ever lower depths of brazen lying and outright stupidity in its incessant need to cover over the crimes of the elites. As more and more information keeps coming to light and more and more scientific applications become clarified, the more outrageously the media spins.

I'm sorry if my questions were dumb remo! What would you have asked Corley?

Remo, I thought the questioning approach was excellent. It was graceful and civil.
People like Corley would hang up and shut-down on most interviewers.
It takes skill to keep someone like Corley on the line.

Remo, If you have better skills to keep an interview going... then you go do it with a radio show or some individual, and record it for us all to hear.