As indicated above, nano-thermite must explain all of the physical evidence indicated in pictorial data. If it cannot explain evidence, it could not be the only causative agent. If it contradicts evidence, obviously, it must be thrown out. In this case, it does both.
At this point, we have to consider the motivations of Mr. Roberts. Obviously, he would know of the evidence described above. Pictures of all aspects of Ground Zero have been available on the internet for years. Views of multiple angles from different, relatively proximate points in time corroborate these phenomena. Eyewitness testimonies of the rescue personnel corroborate them as well. The answer to his question of "how millions of pieces of unburnt, uncharred paper can be floating over lower Manhattan" has been available to him for years.
As indicated by Mr. Roberts, he is an Oxford educated person. He has been outspoken about 9/11 as a hoax for a long time. Surely he has looked at all the pictorial data before willingly risking his reputation and financial well-being on an alternative story that does not stand up to close scrutiny. If nothing else, surely researchers of 9/11 pictorial evidence would have made him aware of the flaws in the "nano-thermite theory. Actually, they have (Morgan Reynolds, PhD, to name one).
So if Mr. Roberts knew of the flaws to the thermite theory, what is he doing here? Could it be projection, the art of taking a known theory and fitting it to a scapegoat to draw attention away from his own flawed theory? Consider:
- Roberts hammers on the government as consistent liars who never tell the truth. He points to the well-documented lies of the previous Administration (Iraq, etc.) as proof that all governments lie all the time;
- He states that the public is too ignorant to understand the highly technical findings of experts in physics and engineering as an excuse for the Big Lie. As a matter of fact, the pictorial data is easily understood by someone with a high school education.;
- He ignores evidence other than that cherry-picked to support his claim (fall time speed), just as the authorities (9/11 Commission and NIST) have. There are two independent researchers who have investigated what happened, submitted their findings to NIST, and took to court the contractors who participated in this science fraud. Why is Paul Craig Roberts knowingly suppressing this information? Why is he instead promoting information he knows is not true? *
- He develops a straw man (nano-thermite) found in dust samples ignoring evidence to the contrary. He then martyrs his theory with the chain of custody conspiracy.
- He names guilty parties such as the U.S. military and Israel without presenting any proof of a connection to unsupported physical evidence. (Why has Steven Jones never filed a Request for Correction (RFC) with NIST including his claim of nano-thermite residue? His organization actually filed an RFC, but did not submit their thermite evidence to NIST, a government agency. Is this because they know it is a crime to defraud the government or is this because they really aren't sure if they have found anything significant?)
- He provides unrelated rationalizations for why average people as well as highly educated people ignore the nano-thermite claims (they can see the pictures as well) such as paradigm shift. I thought his article was about propaganda, not paradigm shift. True paradigm shift forces people to actually look at physical evidence and determine the old theory doesn't explain the results, not presenting a new theory hoping that no one will look.
- He emphasizes how hopeless everything is. Anyone in the academic arena will lose their jobs as a result of loss of government funding dollars. Any private sector firm cannot step forward and point out the obvious as they would lose government contracts and business to flag-waving true believers. Is this a subliminal threat?
- He indicates that kooks and nuts have sidelined the efforts of Dr. Jones and others without naming them. In point of fact, Dr. Jones has sided with the kooks and nuts (Astroturf corporate rabble-rousers, Alex Jones and his followers) and encouraged them to beat down dissent by anyone willing to point out the physical flaws of their story. Is it possible he was lumping the latter with the former while ignoring this point of fact?
Again, I ask the question: Why would Mr. Roberts do this?
Consider this idea: If an entity wished to pull off the proverbial "Big Lie , would they not prepare as well for the "Big Cover-up? Would they not wish to jump out in front of the eventual discovery by one or a handful of honest folks looking at the physical evidence and discovering it to be entirely inconsistent with the so-called "official story? Wouldn't it be better to have an alternative story that may seem plausible (if neglecting the evidence), makes the average person feel good that they are capable of realizing the official inconsistencies for themselves, but yet make them feel totally incapable of understanding the physics and chemistry of such things? In doing so, one generates anger at the official story, yet set up the straw man for those still accepting the official story. All the while, neither side is considering all of the physical evidence. That is called a false choice. In other words, this has become an either/or debate in which one side feels vindicated by the debunking of a straw man and the other suspicious because they found one inconsistency and what appears to be a cover-up.
As with the official story about the stumbling and bumbling of highly trained intelligence officials and bureaucrats, it would appear that Mr. Roberts is asking us to consider one of two scenarios for presenting career-threatening debunked evidence: Either he is a fool or he is part of the cover-up. I think it is obvious from his education and life's work that the former is unlikely. That leaves us with the alternative.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
