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)."
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.