Christopher Bollyn: Just Another 9/11 Gatekeeper?

wordpress analytics

Bollyn has been promoting the Steve Jones nanothermite theory of the destruction of the WTC buildings for several years now. The World Trade Center buildings exploded so that rules out nanothermite as a cause for the destruction because NANOTHERMITE IS NOT EXPLOSIVE! Jim Fetzer and T. Mark Hightower thoroughly debunked nanothermite two years ago in their article on Veterans Today “Is “9/11 Truth” Based Upon a False Theory?” The Wikipedia definition of thermite is “Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of metal powder fuel and metal oxide. When ignited by heat, thermite undergoes an exothermic oxidation-reduction reaction. Most varieties are not explosive but can create brief bursts of high temperature in a small area. Its form of action is similar to that of other fuel-oxidizer mixtures, such as black powder. Thermites have diverse compositions. Fuels include aluminum, magnesium, titanium, zinc, silicon, and boron. Aluminum is common because of its high boiling point. Oxidizers include boron(III) oxide, silicon(IV) oxide, chromium(III) oxide, manganese(IV) oxide, iron(III) oxide, iron(II,III) oxide, copper(II) oxide, and lead(II,IV) oxide.” Thermite is a pyrotechnic NOT an explosive. Here is a YouTube clip of thermite in action: Any serious 9/11 researcher should have dropped the nanothermite business a long time ago. The highest explosive velocity attributed to nanothermite is 895 meters per second (mps). In order to explode concrete a detonation velocity of 3,200 mps is required and 6,100 mps to explode steel. It is just PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE THAT NANOTHERMITE CAUSED THE WTC DESTRUCTION! Could it have played some minor role? Perhaps but it cannot explain the massive destruction witnessed on 9/11.

The Winter Garden: Where the Nanothermite and DEWs Theories Go to DieWinter Garden

Debris from the North Tower was ejected over 600 feet and destroyed the Winter Garden Atrium. The Winter Garden is sandwiched between WFC 2 and 3. High powered explosives were required to eject debris that far out and since nanothermite is not an explosive it cannot explain the destruction of the Winter Garden. Judy Wood’s DEW non-theory posits that the buildings turned to dust more or less in place. She can’t explain how massive amounts of debris are ejected this far out. The Winter Garden is really the end of the line for any theory besides mini-nukes. Atriumdestroyed1 Bollyn appears to be aware of these facts as he links to our Mystery Solved and Mini-Neutron Bomb articles in his hit piece on Jeff Prager on his blog. There is no rational defense for the nanothermite theory in 2013. 9/11 research has progressed well beyond that woefully inadequate theory. So is Bollyn an honest 9/11 researcher or is he a covert operator attack dog working for the Steve Jones crew? Bollyn and Jones never address the evidence for nuclear fission that Prager presents in the USGS dust samples. Instead they offer up flimsy defenses of nanothermite and attack the messenger. It certainly appears that Bollyn is more of an attack dog than an honest researcher.

38 thoughts on “Christopher Bollyn: Just Another 9/11 Gatekeeper?

  1. More importantly, we know for fact that at least 90% of the fatalities attributed to the World Trade Center attack didn’t show up for work on September 11, 2001. This was inadvertently proven back in late summer of 2011 by NYC government officials charged with official responsibility with this aspect of the crime:

    “Another major non-government source of death reports are family members who are eligible to receive Social Security survivor benefits. “In our vital-records analysis of those deaths, we determined that about 70 percent of these people were under 40,” said Susan Craig, a spokeswoman for the New York City Health Department. [Steven] Schwartz [vital-records registrar for New York City] agreed. “There is no question that these were largely younger people,” he said. “When there are younger victims, there may not be survivors” to claim federal benefits. As a result, more than 90 percent of New York’s victims were not recorded in the Death Master File.” – ‘Why 9/11 victims’ names are missing from federal death registry’, By Thomas Hargrove, Scripps Howard News Service, Fri, 09/09/2011 – 11:55am.

    Is this true?

    9/11 Fatalities:

    Americans = 2,605; American Residents of New York = 1,762

    Social Security Administration Paying 9/11 Survivors Benefits To Survivors Though Victims’ Names Are Not Listed on the Social Security Death Index:

    By August 2003, the Social Security Administration was paying monthly benefits to 2,375 surviving children and 853 surviving spouses (which includes divorced spouses if (1) the divorced spouse is taking care of a child under 16; or (2) the divorced spouse is over the age of 60 and was married to the deceased for at least 10 years) of 9/11 victims. In addition to monthly benefits, one-time payments were made to 1,800 members of victims’ families. — ‘Social Security’s Response to 9-11 Attacks: More than $3 million a month being paid to victims’ families’, by Robert Longley, U.S. Government Info, August 2003.

    Because 70% of New York’s 9/11 victims were under 40, the victims’ offspring were MORE likely to be within the age of eligibility for survivors’ benefits, thereby INCREASING the number of those eligible for survivors’ benefits, contradicting both Susan Craig Steven Schwartz.

    With 67.639% of American victims being NY residents (1,762 NY/2,605 total American), we can confidently say that at least 50% of the 853 surviving spouses receiving survivor benefits as of August 2003 were the spouses of New York victims. 853 x .5 = 426.5, so that’s 426 spouses receiving survivors benefits and 426 names that MUST be recorded on the Social Security Death Index.

    426/1,762 = 24.17%

    24.17% is a minimum statistic for New York victims’ names that should be listed on the Social Security Death Index, not the under 10% statistic admitted to by vital-records registrar for New York City, Steven Schwartz. Of course, the statistic of 24.17% is higher since 2,752 death certificates were filed relating to the 9/11 attacks, as of February 2005, and funeral homes would have reported (as is custom) most of those deaths to the Social Security Administration.

    In other words, greater than 90% of World Trade Center “victims” didn’t go to work on September 11, 2001!

    • I haven’t done any research on the victims. You bring up some good points and everyone should check this stuff out.

      • The Scripps Howard News Service article, and its implications, was completely neglected by the 9/11 Truth Movement. Why? Certainly the leadership within the “truth movement” knew what the article proved.

        The same non-response was received by my earlier series of articles on NORAD which showed what NORAD actually tracked/monitored on and before September 11, 2001. Thanks to pre-9/11 literature already published on NORAD, we know that NORAD was tracking/monitoring all four 9/11 aircraft. However, when I published the first article on NORAD, it was ridiculed at 9/11 Blogger. Elsewhere, my article was allowed a death via silence.

        The following is my second article on NORAD, posted at my website on July 2, 2008:

        In The NORAD Papers we learned from documents dating from the 1990s that NORAD had three core missions since its creation in 1958. These are:

        a. surveillance and control of the airspace covering the United States and Canada;

        b. providing the NCAs with tactical warning and attack assessment of an aerospace attack against North America; and

        c. providing an appropriate response to any form of an air attack.

        The last two missions constitute NORAD’s “outward” search for hostile aircraft approaching the North American continent. NORAD’s first mission, however, tasks the agency to monitor and control all aircraft within the United States’ and Canada’s air space. This is what NORAD calls “air sovereignty”. Let’s take a closer look at what constitutes “air sovereignty”.

        As reported by the Government Accountability Office in 1994 (then called the General Accounting Office), “NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control of the territorial airspace, which includes:

        1. intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects;

        2. tracking hijacked aircraft;

        3. assisting aircraft in distress;

        4. escorting Communist civil aircraft; and

        5. intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts.”1

        The GAO report also addresses NORAD’s air sovereignty responsibilities ‘post’ USSR:

        “…the force [NORAD] has refocused its activity on the air sovereignty mission, concentrating on intercepting drug smugglers. However, anti-drug smuggling activities at some units and alert sites have been minimal and at others almost nonexistent. Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD’s alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites’ total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.”2

        We learn from the GAO report that NORAD’s first core mission, surveillance and control of territorial airspace, consists mostly of “visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress”3 within the United States.

        Several days after the 9/11 attacks, NORAD spokesman, Major Mike Snyder, for NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colorado confirmed the high number of NORAD interceptions:

        “Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft.”4

        To what ends would NORAD go in enforcing its charter to control United States airspace? Major Snyder explains what actions NORAD is mandated by law to perform in order to ensure control of United States air space when confronting a non-compliant pilot:

        “When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot’s attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane’s path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile.”5

        In 1996 NORAD prepared and practiced “its charter through continuous training and a realistic exercise program. Probably the biggest of these exercises is Amalgam Warrior, which is held twice annually in the fall for the East Coast and in the spring for the West Coast. The five-day fall Amalgam Warrior put Americans and Canadians through their paces, challenging forces in three areas coinciding with the command’s aerospace warning, AIR SOVEREIGNTY [emphasis mine] and air defense missions.

        The exercise was conducted in real time with a fictitious world political scenario, which prompted NORAD forces to transition from a peacetime posture to a war-fighting stance. The threat escalated from TRACKING [emphasis mine] unknown aircraft, which filed bad flight plans or wandered off course, and in-flight emergencies [all four hijacked aircraft on 9/11 were also in-flight emergencies6] to TERRORIST AIRCRAFT ATTACKS [emphasis mine] and large-scale bomber strike mission.”7

        How important is the “air sovereignty” mission to the Air Force? Colonel Dan Navin, special assistant to the commander of 1st Air Force in 1997 speaks to this question when he commented,”…many say [it] is the most important job of the Air Force, and that is air sovereignty.”8

        As Commander-in-Chief, North American Aerospace Defense Command from August 1998 to February 2000, General Richard Myers would have known that NORAD’s mission included surveillance and control of the air space within the United States on 9/11.9

        Therefore when the former commander of NORAD stated in testimony he gave before the 9/11 Commission pertaining to NORAD’s failure to anticipate the 9/11 attacks, “I can’t answer the hypothetical. It’s more – it’s the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward” 10 he knowingly committed perjury. As such, the United States Department of Justice now has the duty to charge General Richard Myers with perjury and determine why he committed perjury.

  2. At the end of the day, they blew the buildings to bits. We all know that. I think the more important issue at hand is who “they” are. Instead of wasting everyones time pointing fingers and saying so and so isn’t a good truther, we should be pointing at the people that did it. And there is a ton of info out there about that already. We just need to focus on that instead and bring those people to justice.

    • The WTC buildings were nuked. The folks behind 9/11 DESPERATELY try to hide this fact. That’s why Steve Jones and Judy Wood are out there slinging their BS. If they’re trying so hard to hide something then by God I’m going to do everything I can to expose it. We’re not going to get anywhere until the limited hangouts like Jones and Wood are exposed for what they are.

      • They used all manner of demolition tactics….probably every conventional and non conventional. Who really cares? I mean isn’t it more important to bring those that did this to justice than bicker over non issues. Or is it more important to stay on the hamster wheel and never do anything to them?

      • The real folks behind it like nothing better than people point venomous fingers at each other. Bollyn is far more concerned with the who and has paid the price, and Judy Wood who credentials that matches anyone has also paid the price for a glimpse into exotic weapons. You can tell al lot about people by the cost of trying to tell the truth. Lots of trolls and even Suskind’s minions about.

      • Chris took time out of his busy schedule to skewer my friend Jeff Prager who has done much better work on 9/11 than he has. Jeff Prager spent considerable time and effort getting the USGS dust sample evidence out to the public. Prager’s groundbreaking work proves nuclear fission occurred at the WTC. Jeff’s work actually produces fruit – he gives us something that actually explains what happened at Ground Zero and why those giant skyscrapers were demolished in less than 30 seconds. For his efforts Bollyn goes after him with a nasty hit piece.

        If Chris could have dug up any dirt on me he already would have run with it. Last fall he called my parents, they gave him my number and I talked to him a couple of times on the phone. He knows where I work etc. Why is Chris spending so much time digging around looking for dirt on us? Why not spend that time going after the 9/11 perps? Doesn’t make much sense unless he actually works for them.

        Judy Wood’s book was written by the CIA. I have this from a VERY good source – a person very closely connected to this stuff. They don’t want to go public with it at this time unfortunately. I’ve been attacked many times by the psychotic Wood cult. You guys have NO IDEA the type of stuff that lands in my Inbox.

    • agreed. sometimes i wonder if all these bloggers, with the monochrome square pattern designs for gravatars, are people at all, or just sophisticated blogbots. notice that they network extensively amongst themselves, and they all post such lengthy comments that actually say very little. they always try to lead us away from what is known and proven, away from actionable intelligence, back to the realm of speculatory infighting.

      • @Don: “Chris took time out of his busy schedule to skewer my friend Jeff Prager who has done much better work on 9/11 than he has.”

        Much better work? What perps has Prager identified? This seems like a totally gratuitous comment. Just smearing and denigrating. Was your friend Prager nearly beaten to death by a black op surveillance team like Bollyn?

        Bollyn does not go around trumpeting himself as the only worthwhile 9-11 investigator. I have communicated with him extensively and also helped distributed his book on 9-11. And they are very effective.

        And this is another priceless comment illustrating who YOU are:

        “Why is Chris spending so much time digging around looking for dirt on us? Why not spend that time going after the 9/11 perps? Doesn’t make much sense unless he actually works for them.”

        Chris did go after the perps and identified many plausible characters. And then you offer an apologetic for someone else in almost the same breath:

        “I have this from a VERY good source – a person very closely connected to this stuff. They don’t want to go public with it at this time unfortunately. ”

        I’m sorry Don but you really seem to emanate malice in almost every word you pen here. Most people who read your comments will suspect strongly that you have a personal agenda against Chris Bollyn. Your bitterness and pettiness do not attest to your integrity or credibility at all.

      • Prager has published a lot of stuff on the who and the money trail etc. I used to think Bollyn was a good guy but his recent actions and support of Steve Jones and his ridiculous nanothermite theory certainly have led me to question what side of this thing Chris is really on.

        I did a couple of searches this week and Bollyn was trashing us last fall when we came out with the mini-neutron bomb article. So when I defend myself or one of my friends now I have an agenda against Bollyn? I was a fan of his work until he started coming after us.

        I’m just a regular Joe Blow who works a regular 40 hour a week job like everyone else lucky enough to still be employed in this economy. I call ’em like I see ’em. I don’t get paid to write this stuff so I have the freedom to write what I want to. If you don’t like my writing style feel free to point your browser in a different direction.

  3. Great article. I still have not fully digested the nuke hypothesis, but I have known in my gut since Jones (and later Gage) team came on the scene in early 2005 that he was disinfo and misinfo. That has been his and his minions’ consistent M O from the get-go.

    One thing I am still unclear on is the following. Is it sure that large anomalous amounts of nanothermite were indeed found in the dust, from ALL dust studies? I mean, does it look like the presence of extra-large quantities of nanothermite (NT) meant that the NT was artifically planted in the WTC buildings before hand? Could the sole purpose of that rather monumental work/man hours endeavor have been to have it to point to and use in the post-event disinfo narratives? If the NT was planted so that it could effect the “small role” it was to play, one has to wonder if the “small role” was not so small after all, but was more of an indispensable crucial ingredient.

    Another question — when you write that NT may have played some “small role” in the destruction of the towers, could you give any example ideas of exactly what that small role could have looked like?

    I wrote to Mark Hightower and asked him if it seemed anywhere plausible to think that somehow the NT cut through the main columns of the Towers first and then as the next step, the nukes went off and finished the job. Mr. Hightower seemed, in a very tentative way, to indicate that may be a possibility. There is a person named Chuck Boldwyn who has been a consistent critic of Judy Wood on Dr. Fetzer’s forum and on his radio show, that that two-step process is exactly the “theory” that Boldwyn has set forth on the forum, but only on the forum. Boldwyn seems to not say anything about his own theory but also criticizes those like Wood & Reynolds for only refuting others’ theories and not speaking and supporting much regarding their own theory. It seems to me that Boldwyn is clinging to NT too, jusk like disinfo people like Bollyn and 911Blogger and 99 percent of the Genesis Communications and Republic Broadcasting Network show hosts and their fans.

    I personally think Boldwyn has done some good work and made some nice contributions and I do not think he is a disinfo person, but his clinging to NT does kind of dissipate respect for his knowledge of physics, etc. in other areas.

    I have been quietly collecting data since 9-11-01 showing the Steven Jones & Co. connections to US Zionist military industrial complex entities and drawing a straight line between Jones and “the Zionists” 9-11 perps. Every time I have, in a mild conservative way, tried to post this idea on PressTV article or even on Mark Glen’s Ugly Truth forum, my post is either not posted at all or I am ganged up on and jumped on my several other posters.

    I would comment that Dr. Niels Harritt seems to be a “good and honest scienttist”. a term that unfortunately is no longer a redundancy. I think Harritt probably rues the day he got involved with Steven Jones. But who knows what considerations haveing been passed amongst whom under the table for over a decade.

    Would suggest you use the term “non-theory” for Jones’ NT idea too. And really, the nuke theory is a “non-theory” too. The problem is all researchers seems to fluctuate in their use of the term “theory.” Sometimes it is meant in the loose colloquial sense, such as when Dr. Fetzer suggests Dr. Wood is really putting forth a “theory”, and the term “theory” is also carefully always avoided by some researchers who prefer to conserve the strict scientific definition of the term.

    As far as the Zionists doing 9-11 idea, it is a good one, but it has not yet been fully or clearly set forth. One has to greatly elaborate on the specific extent of the presence of the Mossad in the USA. One has to set up some clear guidelines between what is objective presentation of facts and what is “anti-semitism”, something that is real and equally demands a clear definition.

    • Chuck Boldwyn is a mini-nuke proponent. I know Chuck and he’s a good guy. Chuck thinks that some of the fuming observed before the WTC1 and 7 came down may be due to thermite. So that’s a possible use of thermite.

      Judy denies she has a theory that’s why I use the term “non-theory” for DEWs. Say what you will about Jones he does have a theory. It has no explanatory power but it’s a theory.

      Mini-nukes is also a theory. See our Mystery Solved post either here on my blog or over at Veterans Today: to get up to speed on the mini-nuke theory.

      Prager doesn’t see thermite in the USGS dust samples so I wouldn’t say it’s in ALL the dust samples.

      I’m sure Zionists were involved in 9/11 but they couldn’t have pulled it off without help from the US government.

    • Jeannon Kralj ,

      9/11 was at least a decade’s-long planed operation. Most of the companies that leased office space in WTC 1 & 2 were intelligence fronts, whose employees are still alive, hence the reason their names aren’t listed on the Social Security Death Index, though NYC officials, Susan Craig and Steven Schwartz., inadvertently admitted they should be (read my initial comment above for more on this neglected proof that 9/11 was a [made in American] false flag operation). Don’t you think the CIA/DoD with their offices across the street inside WTC 7 would have caught on to the Israeli plot long before September 11, 2001? The size of the 9/11 operation precluded it being anything but 100% grade USA!

      • In order to be listed on the SS Death Index, you have to have a surviving relative apply for the $200 the SS gives you when you die, but only if you apply for it. Do you really think that multi millionaires are going to waste time acquiring the forms, filling them out, mailing them etc for a measly $200 ??? If no one applies and fills out the forms, your name doesn’t get on the Death Index.

      • TheHolyCrow says,

        “In order to be listed on the SS Death Index, you have to have a surviving relative apply for the $200 the SS gives you when you die, but only if you apply for it. Do you really think that multi millionaires are going to waste time acquiring the forms, filling them out, mailing them etc for a measly $200 ??? If no one applies and fills out the forms, your name doesn’t get on the Death Index.”

        Firstly, one doesn’t need to apply for benefits to have the deceased listed on SSDI. SSDI was created to prevent identity fraud, hence when the name of the deceased is reported (as is commonly performed by funeral homes) to the SSA, the name is listed. Secondly, why did you reply with such egregious errors, when my article clearly points out:

        “By August 2003, the Social Security Administration was paying monthly benefits to 2,375 surviving children and 853 surviving spouses (which includes divorced spouses if (1) the divorced spouse is taking care of a child under 16; or (2) the divorced spouse is over the age of 60 and was married to the deceased for at least 10 years) of 9/11 victims. In addition to monthly benefits, one-time payments were made to 1,800 members of victims’ families. — ‘Social Security’s Response to 9-11 Attacks: More than $3 million a month being paid to victims’
        families’, by Robert Longley, U.S. Government Info, August 2003.”

        Those 853 surviving spouses represent a minimum of 24.17% of NY victims’ names that must be on the SSDI, not the under 10% statistic admitted to by Steven Schwartz, vital-records registrar for New York City.

    • I emailed Chris a week ago and told him has done some good work on 9/11 but I didn’t understand why he was bashing Prager and promoting known disinfo agent Steve Jones. I never heard back from him. He’s welcome to email me or leave a comment here and explain himself.

      • To say Jones is a disinformation agent is rediculous. He is a scientist who promotes the NT because he can scientifically PROOVE it. He has the samples physically on his possession. It is not “theory”, it is physical PROOF. Any good scientist could and would do the exact same thing. You stick with the FACTS. It is KISS, keep it simple stupid. Now it is very much in the realm of possibilities that mini nukes or DEWS or Hutchison Effect weapons, or even something so exotic beyond your comprehension was used, but these are just theories at the moment. More work has to be done for them to be FACT ! How about this for a theory…the perpetrators had help from inter dimensional aliens who used molecular disintegrates aimed thru a wormhole from a star system existing in another dimension. Now go ahead and try to proove or disprove that.

      • You must not be paying attention. We have proof of nuclear fusion in the Department of Energy water samples and proof of fission in the USGS dust samples. Jones is aware of this evidence. He just states that the tritium found in the DOE water is samples “is below the level of human concern.” He never attempts to explain how the tritium got there in the first place. He won’t comment on the USGS samples at ALL.

        Nanothermite is not explosive and cannot account for the devastation at Ground Zero – 1/3 of the Towers completely vaporized, 300 ton chunks of the North Tower ejected into the Winter Garden, pyroclastic flow covering Manhattan, 600 to 1,500 °F temperatures for 6 months after 9/11 and fires that burned for 99 days after 9/11.

        So yes – a nuclear physicist denying nukes at GROUND ZERO despite massive evidence FOR nukes and promoting a bullshit theory would qualify as a disinformation agent.

      • Don,

        Do you think Jones was forced out of his position at BYU as part of the disinformation campaign? In other words it was all an act and he probably still receives his BYU salary or some such idea?

        We all thought he was dismissed for daring to state the unthinkable that 9-11 was a false flag.

      • I don’t know what happened between Jones and BYU – you’d have to ask him about that. Is he still on the government or BYU payroll? Who knows. I can only evaluate the information I have available to me: massive evidence for nukes at Ground Zero and Jones, a nuclear physicist, is denying it. I can’t speak to his motivations. People should ask Steve why he is denying nukes and promoting a bogus theory.

      • Jones is a professional nuclear physicist. Can you tell us your qualifications to expound on this idea? Are you a scientist? An engineer? Architect? And why didn’t the Architects for 9-11 Truth suggest nukes?

      • Since you are the one attacking Jones, I think the onus is on you to get an explanation from him. And if you are going to challenge him head to head, present your credentials so we can know if you are even qualified to pontificate on this.

      • From Steve Jones’ 2006 letter “Proponents of the “mini-nuke” theory are invited to organize their data and write up a serious evidence-oriented paper, to submit to the Journal of 9/11 Studies as a reply to this Letter. That reply will be published. A thorough response should address all of the points above. The Journal editors (corresponding to known practice in the scientific community) state that they will allow such responses to be published without peer-review constraints, the main requirements for publication being relevance, civility in the presentation, avoiding straw-man arguments, raising specific points and questions, and naming of the author(s) so that they may be contacted for further discussion.”

        Ed Ward and I have written a paper that responds to all of Jones’ points and we have sent it off to Jim Fetzer for a few final tweaks then it will be published on Veterans Today and submitted to Steve Jones.

        If I wasn’t qualified to pontificate on this 30,000+ people wouldn’t have read my Mystery Solved: the WTC Was Nuked on 9/11 article in the last 2 weeks. And the intel crowd wouldn’t be posting bullshit on my blog 40 times a day.

      • Pretty simple: IF we’re going to call ourselves the 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT we better damn well tell the public the truth! And the truth is the WTC was nuked! You are either in the truth business or you’re not.

      • I met Stephen Jones back in 2006 when he spoke in Boulder Colorado along with Kevin Barrett and one other early Truther.

        After the talk I introduced myself and Jones told me he did graduate student work at SLAC, which is a front organization for nuclear weapons research. I was astounded that someone from there could be in the 9-11 Truth business.

    • What about the images of molten steel pouring out of the side of the WTC. Isn’t that evidence of thermite? Nukes would simply vaporize the building and probably would not lead to freefall. Where do you suppose the “nukes” were placed? How were they able to calibrate them so precisely so as to limit the damage to the immediate vicinity and not to all of southern Manhattan?

      Finally what difference does it make if nukes were used or not? What is clear is that the official story is bogus and there should be a Grand Jury investigation with power to subpoena witnesses so we can hear once and for all what Lucky Larry meant by saying “pull it.”

      • If it doesn’t matter if nukes were used or not why are so many people attacking me for saying that elevated levels of tritium in the water and uranium, thorium, barium, strontium, chromium, yttrium, cesium and zinc in the dust indicates nukes?

      • I’m not attacking you. Your theory may be plausible.

        But I don’t like your attacking Bollyn. That’s all.

        Bollyn presents the most compelling case for Zionist orchestration of 9-11. Your nuke theory perhaps is designed to mitigate that idea by necessitating US military involvement.

        At any rate, what is your goal? Do you think justice will be served? Never!

        Look how worked up Americans are about the latest Obama scandals. Yet for 12 years they couldn’t care less about 9-11 despite the enormity of the lies staring them in the face.

        So all I am interested in from 9-11 research is the lesson that we cannot believe anything from the whoreporate mess media. Bollyn’s writings satisfy me on that. You however seem intent on creating division in the camp.

      • I don’t have a vendetta against Bollyn. He’s on the money with the Zionist angle. Chris has done good work on 9/11. He took a few shots at my good friend Jeff Prager and that kind of pissed me off. So I returned the favor.

        My goal is simple: explain to the public the truth of what happened to the WTC buildings on 9/11. Thermite is a load of BS. It truly was Ground Zero. There is a reason WHY they call it Ground Zero. Nukes were detonated there and innocent people in office buildings got nuked so the blood thirsty killing machine could invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

      • Fair enough. Thanks for answer.

        But if you concede Chris’ work on the Zionists is good, how could he be a disinformation agent?

        Are you arguing that both Zionists and US military were involved and each side is castigating the other?

      • Limited hangout is a better term than disinfo agent for Chris at this point. A limited hangout admits parts of the operation but conceals others – the deepest and darkest parts. Nukes in this case.

Comments are closed.