7th Annual 9/11 Physics Debate: Josh Mitteldorf and Denis Rancourt_on Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Radio

Coming Up Thursday, April 2nd —
Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday at 8am Pacific * 11am Eastern * 16:00 GMT
Sunday encore at 2pm Pacific * 5pm Eastern * 21:00 GMT

Kevin Barrett's Truth Jihad Radio

7th Annual 9/11 Physics Debate: Josh Mitteldorf and Denis Rancourt

The original YouTube version of this scientific debate was inexplicably (mistakenly?) banned from Rick Shaddock’s channel. It is now posted at Kevin’s channel and can be watched HERE.

Josh Mittledorf earned his Ph.D. in astrophysics from the University of Pennsylvania. His current focus is evolutionary biology. He is a theorist specializing in computer simulations that demonstrate how natural selection can act on groups and communities. He is affiliated with the EAPS at MIT, but he works on his own. He’s recently completed a book on aging from an evolutionary perspective.

Denis Rancourt holds a Ph.D. (University of Toronto) in physics. He was awarded a prestigious national Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada university research fellowship, practiced several areas of science (including physics and environmental science), and ran an internationally recognized laboratory for twenty-three years. He was forced out of the University of Ottawa in 2009 in what one expert observer called an “administrative mobbing” and in what is a major academic freedom case in Canada.

7th Annual 9/11 Physics Debate: Josh Mitteldorf and Denis Rancourt

Co-hosted by Rick Shaddock of ANETA.org

Kevin Barrett: This is a very special annual occasion. It’s the seventh annual 9/11 physics debate hosted by RickShaddockof ANETA.org, and featuring this year, Josh Mitteldorf and Denis Rancourt. So let’s turn it over to Rick Shaddock of ANETA.org, the Association for 9/11 Truth Awareness, who will tell us about this debate. Take it away, Rick.

Rick Shaddock: Yes. ANETA is the Association for 9/11 Truth Awarenesson K Street in Washington, D.C. We’ve been lobbying for a new investigation of the events of September 11th, 2001. And one of the most important aspects is the physics of 9/11. Was it possible? And the debate resolution is resolved: The official conspiracy theory of 9/11 violates Newton’s laws of motion, especially the complete collapse of the World Trade Center towers. We started the debates in 2014 with Dr. David Griscom. We’ve had Professor David Chandler debate, and Dr. Crocket Grabbe, a Ph.D. From Caltech. But this is the first time that we’ve been able to get two very esteemed physicists to discuss the details of 9/11. And we’re offering an honorarium of .0 0 9 1 1 bitcoin to the winner. Well, thank you very much for this opportunity, gentlemen. And we look forward to hearing what you have to say.

Kevin Barrett: Ok, so let’s get going here. And by the way, I think that our winners may be donating the Bitcoin to charity. They’re not in it for the money. All right, so let’s start with Josh Mitteldorf. Just give us the brief version of why you’re convinced that the controlled demolition hypothesis is far more likely than the official version of what happened to both the Twin Towers and Building 7 on September 11th, 2001.

Josh Mitteldorf: There are so many aspects of the 9/11 story that don’t ring true and that should raise alarms with any thinking person. Among my friends, each of them has some reason, some hook; they say, “when I heard this, I knew that it was fake.” And I’m a physicist. There’s nothing that I’m more sure of, that I feel more solid about, than high school physics. I’m really secure in my knowledge of high school physics. So when I see that the official story violates basic principles of high school physics, that’s the hook that brings me in. It’s not the thing that will necessarily bring you in. The thing that we find most convincing is the thing that touches us where we live. And it’s it’s different for each thinking person.

I’m going to try to do this in a way that doesn’t require an advanced degree in physics to understand. The simplest thing for me is, you’ve seen buildings burn and fall over. You’ve seen a structure that is taller than it is wide topple over. They don’t fall straight down. They don’t fall all of a sudden. If a building burns, some piece of it will burn before the rest of it burns and it will fall off to the side. It’s never symmetrical. And the telltale thing for me is that these three buildings fell straight down into their footprints. That’s not a natural event. That has to be engineered in some way. Any natural falling that comes from a fire or an impact would be asymmetric. It would fall to one side, not straight down.

Denis Rancourt: First of all, I want to say that we’ve all looked at the film footage of Building 7 collapsing, and also what it looked like before the collapse, and where the fires were, and how that all looked. And I am personally convinced that Building 7 was a controlled demolition. It really just fell straight down into its footprint. It didn’t get crushed from above. It lost its foundation and then came down onto its footprint. So I would agree, and I think that it’s a great concern. That should be clear to any informed observer, that Building 7 was a controlled demolition. So that unravels the whole story for me. If that was a controlled demolition happening at the same time, then there’s way more to this story than just planes hitting the Twin Towers. So that should be like a really certain thing that is a (red) flag that should upset everyone and (make them) want to ask questions.

One of the amazing things about 9/11 is that there was virtually no journalistic investigation. Mainstream media did not send out investigative journalists to interview passengers and observers and experts on demolition.  They didn’t do their job. The establishment media did not provide the kind of information that, not so long ago, decades ago, in the past, when there were major events, they would have done, because there was more freedom and more journalistic independence. So that was one of the things that shocked me about 9/11: the extent to which you didn’t get to meet any of the family of the passengers on the planes or any of the people and the victims, however they were victimized. You didn’t get to hear the story. You didn’t get to see them digging up information and trying to put it together. And there was not an industry of information around it. There was instead a bubble of silence that was impenetrable. The only people talking about it were the people who were outside of the mainstream. So that was very shocking to me.

Regarding the Twin Towers, I do not believe that their collapse is contrary to the laws of physics in any way. I did some calculations and I’ve published this and I showed that it’s quite understandable just in terms of their gravitational energy. First of all, they did not lose their foundation. They were kind of broken at the points of impacts of the airplanes. You can see in some of the footage that the top part above the impact kind of bends, and you can see where the structure has been.

And I’ve looked at this and talked about it. There’s a lot of energy involved in a high speed plane. Most of the energy is carried by the heavy motors that didn’t come flying out the other side of the buildings. They actually impacted it and did their damage in the building. There was an architectural man who studied the history of the architecture of putting up those buildings who showed that the building codes were changed during the building to save a lot of money. Normally the large steel structures that are the core and that hold this particular design in place would have been encased in cement. That was the building code requirement. That would have cost an awful lot. That’s an awful lot of cement. And they replaced that with fireproofing material, which is not as solid as cement. The reason you wanted to encase the steel in cement is to protect it against fire. That the whole reason for that code provision. And instead, they showed that with this fire retardant material you could protect steel from from fire. The problem is that material is impacted upon with a plane motor or whatever. It just gets totally blown away. So all the fire protection on the steel, a lot of it at those points of impact, would disappear. And also the plane coming in from one side would structurally damage the steel girders on one side.

And you can see that when they start to collapse and then the steel is bending, they kind of twist where they impacted. And then the top part of the building comes down and then everything follows from that, its top crushing. And I did the calculation to show people are amazed to know there was melted steel, and so on. But it turns out that the gravitational energy the building supplied is, I had calculated that it’s about a tenth of the Hiroshima bomb. So for the two towers coming down like that, the gravitational energy, what you have to realize is that these were very special towers. They were built in a special way. It was the first time this kind of construction had been used. Now, the gravitational energy of a building collapse goes like the square of its height. So there was an awful lot of gravitational energy. That would have been enough to create everything that we saw, easily. So I don’t see that somehow from just looking at the pictures, the laws of physics (were violated) when it comes to the Twin Towers. Having said that, I don’t think it matters very much. I mean, use Building Seven. It’s about the fact that airplanes were sent into this, the bubble of silence that was created around this. Everything about 9/11 is wrong. We don’t have to argue about the physics of the collapse itself. We don’t have to argue that nanothermite was present. We have argued that. I’ve actually been critical of the physics paper that claims to have seen and identified nanothermite in some of the dust remnant. I’m a materials scientist. I showed that that was unreliable, it couldn’t be true. And so we don’t have to argue about that. We should be concerned about what the government of the United States has done and  was part of, covering up and so on. And that we didn’t get the full story. That’s all I think we should be concerned about.

Kevin Barrett: Well, that makes a lot of sense, up to a point, Denis. But your audio and your image are both getting strange. Your audio seems to be going in and out and your image is now dark.

Denis Rancourt: I was relying on sunlight. I can open this up. I’m really sorry about that.

Kevin Barrett: Ok. That’s better. And now your audio sounds better…But I think I understood enough that we could respond to (Denis). And so, Josh, can you respond to what you just heard from Denis, specifically about his skepticism about what may have happened to the towers?

Josh Mitteldorf: Well, let’s start with what we agree on. There are so many ways that different people find their entree into 911 truth.

For some people, the fact that a passport floated down from this building and into the hands of somebody who brought it over to the police completely unburned, while there wasn’t a single body that survived, let alone the airplane remnants, surviving these crashes. And yet this passport just floated down out of the sky. That was enough to clue people in that there’s something wrong here. For other people, the fact that the administration announced the next day, “We know exactly who did it. It was Osama bin Laden.” They had a story in advance. That was enough to tip them off. For other people, they said, wait a second, the Patriot Act was a 100-page document in tight legalese prose introduced into Congress just a few days after 9/11. They didn’t start working on it, thinking about it, on 9/11. They had this prepared months and months in advance. For other people, the fact that the stocks of the airline companies were heavily short sold by people at Deutsche Bank in the few days before (9/11). They said “wait a second, somebody knew about this ahead of time.” And one more: Going back to Building 7: Building 7 was announced. It was announced that Building 7 was falling down on British television (BBC) 20 minutes before it actually fell down. There are so many entrees into the idea that we’re not being told the whole truth about this. And physics is my entree as I say, only because that’s “where I live.”

So going back to the physics of freefall. Yes, Building 7 just looked like a classic demolition. It was within a second of the freefall time, and David Chandler, as early editions (of this debate) have had documented, very carefully measured the acceleration in the first three seconds of the collapse. And it was exactly freefall, acceleration. So what does that mean? If there’s any resistance at all from the building, if the top is pancaking down and like a pile driver collapsing the structure below, then it’s got to be slower than freefall.

There’s absolutely no resistance in these structural members.  Floor one hundred collapses on floor ninety nine. Four ninety nine is already so weakened and everything below it is so weakened that it’s just ready to fall if you touch it with a with a feather. And if floor one hundred falls down on floor ninety nine, it still has to sweep up that mass like a snow plow. A snow plow can’t go at the same speed as as a car, because it’s pushing the snow ahead of it, more and more snow, and it has to get the snow moving. So just the snowplow effect—if you do the math, it’s a simple calculation, it’s high school physics—it reduces the acceleration of gravity to one third the acceleration of gravity. So it would increase the time by a factor of the square root of three over freefall. Which means that the Twin Towers would have fallen in an absolute minimum of 16 seconds, without this weakening. Just the fact that there’s the inertia of each floor that needs to be swept up by the floor above it. Just from the inertia, with no structure at all. It could not have fallen down in less than 16 seconds. These two buildings fell down in eleven seconds and twelve seconds. So what does that mean? It means that the bottom must be falling, must be starting to fall, simultaneously with the top. Either that’s a tremendous coincidence: “Oh, the bottom happened to to weaken and start to fall at exactly the moment, an hour and a half after impact, that the top weakened and fell”; or else this is engineered (and) there are timed charges that destroy the structural support at the bottom and at the top at the same time. And of course, this is a highly developed technology. It’s the technology of demolition. We know how to do that. We know how to put charges in, time them, so that the building collapses in on itself instead of falling down in a more haphazard way, which is more likely to result. You can imagine if the 100th floor falls in the 99th floor, it’s going to slide off to the side. It’s not going to pile down, down, down, down, through the path of the greatest resistance. It’s going to fall over to the side one way or another, if the official scenario were what was happening.

The only explanation I can think of by far is engineered demolition. The structure on the bottom was destroyed at the same time as the structure at the top so that the whole thing can start falling at the same time. So, to summarize, Building 7 looks like complete classic controlled demolition. Buildings 1 and 2? It looks like other things are happening. It looks like there are explosions. There’s molten iron. There are jets that seem to shoot out from the sides. Multiple explosions. People in the basement say that they heard explosions minutes before the towers came down.[1]So it’s more complicated than simple demolition. And yet we can’t explain what happened to Buildings 1 and 2 without some engineering intervention, without the buildings having been prepared in advance for collapse.

Kevin Barrett: Over to you Denis?

Denis Rancourt: Well, OK. I can’t agree with this whole idea that it would have had to be 16 seconds. You’d have to look at that calculation. It’s not as trivial as you claim. You’ve got a large part of the building that is weakened at a connecting point, bends and crashes down on the rest of the building. And then the mass of that entire section is coming down and crushing things as we go.

The details of that calculation…you know, you allude to a snowplow effect. I don’t think it’s that simple at all. And I’m not sure about even the accurate measurement of how you decide that it was eleven or twelve seconds. What point do you start to consider. What point do you look at. When do you stop counting. There’s a lot of uncertainty here and there would be a lot of uncertainty in the calculation of the 16 seconds as well. And I don’t recall but if you just let a freefall object fall that total height without air resistance, what would the time be for that?

Josh Mitteldorf: Nine seconds.

Denis Rancourt: Nine seconds. OK, so you’ve got 12 seconds compared to nine seconds. So you’ve already got three seconds more there. And we’re not clear where you’re measuring it from. So it wasn’t you know… And the whole debate is, is that possible or not? Well, we don’t know the details. Your calculation of the 16 seconds would have to take into account the actual structure of the building. A lot of the central, the strongest parts, the central parts, were not just flat horizontal floors held by weak links that were collapsing onto each other. That, I’m sure is completely wrong, having looked at the schematics and so on. So you can’t do a calculation assuming that, which is the sort of simplified snowplow idea, I guess, the pancakes coming down. I don’t think that calculation is anything like that.

And when you look at the at the mass at the end, there is a large central structure which looks like that structural thing that’s sticking out. Okay. So in a sense, it’s much longer than 16 seconds because it hasn’t completely collapsed down. I mean, it seems to me if you were demolishing it, you would have ensured that that central structural element would be taken down early. But it survives. So I think there’s much more going on than this simple calculation that you say gives a golden 16 seconds, which is different from the 12, and therefore, there must have been this sophisticated, prepared and timed demolition. I think that’s just a huge stretch, but I’m not prepared to debate it in detail. We would have to do calculations, have a structural model of the building where the mass was distributed, and so on. There are certain calculations you can do simply. We know the total weight of the building. We know it’s distributed in height. Like I said earlier, I calculated the energy released just from the gravitational energy, which would have to be about a tenth of the Hiroshima bomb. So that’s enough to create a lot of the explosions and flying debris and all kinds of things that you’ve mentioned and even molten steel at the bottom. The energy was available to do that without any other explosives or anything being required. I’m convinced of that. So I just don’t see it, that the simple physics is such that there must have been controlled demolition. To me, that’s just outlandish. I don’t see it. But, you know, what’s the point of trying to debate this without actually looking at calculations and models of the building and so on? And then you get into a whole big thing. It becomes technical.

Why does this matter? There are more important questions. For example, government lies to us about huge and very important things. 9/11 is not even particularly outstanding in terms of the size of a lie. When you look at the magnitude of lies that the establishment maintains and keeps us in ignorance about, it’s huge. So in a sense it’s almost immature to say, look, if we can prove that 9/11 was somehow very special, then that will show that the government lies. Well, if you don’t know that the government lies…I mean, it’s based on lies. The whole edifice is based on lies. Those, I think, are more important things to talk about. For example, if I had to ask, what is what is the biggest lie in our society guarding our system? I’m sure we could come up with many that are much bigger than 9/11. One that I have studied and talked about often is establishment medicine. Establishment medicine is the third largest killer in the Western world and the fourth is long, long below. Medicine, the treatments, the false diagnosis, the medications, everything. It’s deadly, deadly stuff. And this is covered up. You could argue that life expectancy would increase in the Western world—that calculation you could do, it’s not hard to do—in the Western world, if medicine were just to stop operating.

Kevin Barrett: I’m sorry to interrupt. We need to do a radio show on that topic. You and I can definitely talk about Medical Nemisisby Ivan Illich. But Josh, let’s get back to the physics, the physics of the demolition, or not, of the Trade Towers. And let’s stick on that one. And Denis and I can also debate the importance of various lies. And I would definitely differ with his view of this one. But Josh, let’s talk about Denis’s claim that “we can’t say this was demolition. It’s far too complex. There was so much energy released that anything could happen. Vast amounts of steel could have been melted, et cetera, et cetera.” Do you agree?

Denis Rancourt: Well, we don’t know how vast the amounts are.

Kevin Barrett: There were rivers of molten steel under the Towers.

Denis Rancourt: Rivers?

Josh Mitteldorf: Just as a question of the structure for our debate here, I am with Denis that we have so much more to talk about than just the physics of 9/11, which has been reported in many other venues better than what we’ll do today.

And I would like to to move on to those topics that he’s mentioned. I’m all on board for that. But let’s finish the discussion of 9/11 first. The calculation of 16 seconds was very conservative as a minimum time. It assumed that there was no structural support at all. Only the inertia of each floor needing to be swept up by the floors above it.

Denis Rancourt: Has that calculation been described in detail and published? Because I haven’t looked at it.

Josh Mitteldorf: It’s only online. And it’s really as simple as what I said to you. You do with a snowplow calculation of a continuous medium that collapses from the top down and there’s no support in it at all. But each layer does not begin moving until it’s impacted by the mass. That’s where the square root of three comes from.

Denis Rancourt:It’s not a continuous medium. And the central structural element is more massive and is vertically structured. So the taking that mass and uniformly distributing it in uniform floors and then collapsing them is not a realistic idea of the building.

Josh Mitteldorf: So in the footnote to this, I argue that it’s a lower limit to the time for all those reasons. Making the floors discontinuous actually can only increase the time, if the floors are discrete rather than continuous —

Denis Rancourt:No, no, no, no, no. If what I’m saying is right then the massive central structure would not come down at the same time. The floors would collapse around it and they’d be lighter, much lighter. And then as the floors are coming down, it would be frittering away the central structure. And at the end, that central structure, you can see that it’s been frittered away. But it’s standing out quite high above the ground. So if you get into this argument about, how realistic is the simple calculation? These are not trivial matters to calculate. And also, how is the time being measured? What point are you using to say, OK, at zero time this point is here and after 16 seconds, it’s here. Well, where is the here? I have a hard time with that, with relying on this back of the envelope calculation to give you a number.

Already we have three seconds more than free-fall. So you’re already between free-fall and something else. And you’re saying I calculate it as something else which is 16 seconds and if I’m below that, then I’ve got controlled demolition. Well, come on. If we start playing with the model, does it become 15 seconds? Does it become 14, 13? What does it depend on? How are you measuring time? It’s complicated. So my gut tells me — I haven’t looked at the details, I’m not an expert in doing these calculations for this structure, but my gut tells me that sounds like optimistic dreaming.

Josh Mitteldorf: This isn’t the place to argue the details of the calculation. I argued in my online statement that this is the lower limit to the amount of time, taking into consideration the things that you’ve mentioned. But the big one is that it assumes zero structural support. And these buildings were built to withstand an airplane impact. They were built to withstand temperatures much higher than the thousand degrees or so that you can get from a jet fuel fire, let alone…I mean, the jet fuel was all gone within minutes! The Towers fell an hour later. The jet fuel was all gone. The idea that these steel beams all melted, and melted at exactly the same time, and melted at the top, in the middle, and the bottom all at once — the real world doesn’t work that way. It has to be engineered.

If you don’t know any of that, know that many steel frame buildings have burned. A few steel framed buildings have been hit by airplanes. And before 9/11 and after 9/11, not a single one came down at all, let alone in 10 seconds. You can’t bring a steel frame building down with the fire.

Denis Rancourt: You can’t simplify the problem by just using the term steel frame buildings. These buildings were unique when they were built. And they’re still unique. No buildings are built this way. They were uniquely high. They were uniquely engineered. And they changed the building codes uniquely for these buildings. You can’t just say, you can’t make these kinds of comparisons. Just their height, as I mentioned earlier, the gravitational energy that is available goes like the square of the height. It’s not linear with height. So you can’t use linear thinking.

And you have to take into account the particular structure of these buildings. And the kinds of arguments you you put forward don’t do that. They do the opposite. They use linear thinking. “It’s never happened before. Steel framed buildings.” No. Let’s look at the differences. And not to mention that having to go in and put in explosives in structural elements and then in synchronicity, have them go off. Just doing that is like this horrendously complex engineering thing that you would have to do, presumably secretly ahead of time.

Josh Mitteldorf: Are you are aware that the buildings were closed for four weekends before (the demolitions)? That they said they were “closed for electrical work?”

Denis Rancourt: I know, there are all these explanations why it could have been done. But the point is, I just think, look: Just the fact that you’re using jetliners and crashing them into the World Trade Centers is enough of an attack against America to justify any war in the eyes of politicians. Just the fact that you’re gonna have a mega fire, that you’ve got these iconic buildings that are destroyed, whether they remain standing or not, they’re totally destroyed. Thousands of people get killed. Thousands of people could have been killed if they weren’t. The magnitude of the attack and how coordinated it was, and the fact that it was both buildings, is enough to justify any war. They didn’t need to to actually have a controlled demolition in the middle of New York and the risks that that entails. I mean, you look at controlled demolitions, they often go wrong. There are, you know, thousands of films of controlled demolitions going absolutely wrong. These experts planning and doing it. And then they go sideways, they break into two. They do all kinds of horrible things. Could you imagine them risking that when they already have the kind of event they need to justify any war they want and they control the propaganda instruments that would tell them that you need to go to war and who did this? To me, it’s just…there’s there’s no reason to invent a complicated scenario when you’ve already got everything you need in terms of the motives and what would have been sufficient to justify what they wanted to do. That’s what I think.

Kevin Barrett: Denis, are you aware of the focus groups in the 1990s hired by the U.S. military studying the effect of Pearl Harbor? That’s another topic, I suppose. But the question of whether the attack tried to approximate the number of deaths at Pearl Harbor in order to not just launch wars, but to launch a permanent one hundred years war against the Islamic world, a war which has murdered outright 27 million Muslims. That certainly wouldn’t have happened if there’s just been a couple of plane crashes and a few hundred deaths. But Josh, why don’t you go ahead and respond to the physics arguments.

Denis Rancourt: The statement you just made, Kevin, you know, this is not like a physics equation. The statement you just made is is not just a self proven truth. You know?

Kevin Barrett:  Well, neither is yours.  I just made a very brief response to a non-physics—

Denis Rancourt: No, no. I agree that my statement is not either. It’s a proposal, but yours is a counterproposal. And I think, you know, if you look at the pretexts that are used for launching wars and attacks these days, and it can be almost anything.

Kevin Barrett: They didn’t want to just launch a war. They wanted 100 hundred years of war. They wanted a Pearl Harbor effect. Americans still hated the Japanese in the 1990s. The army did massive focus group study to figure out why that was. If you want to hate a particular ethnic or religious group for at least 50 years, better yet, 100, a permanent war, you need something as big as a Pearl Harbor.[2]

Denis Rancourt: It also assumes that they want a permanent one hundred year war.

Kevin Barrett: That’s the only way that Israel is going to survive, for one thing.

Denis Rancourt: There’s a lot of assumptions there and, well, OK, but this is a very hypothetical discussion and debate. I honestly believe that if just the tops of the building, because you saw the tops of the Twin Towers bend and crash. Let’s say they had crashed beside the buildings. Let’s say the buildings had not collapsed, but they were clearly coming off and they had crashed and tumbled and made a mess in Manhattan. I’m pretty sure that would have been enough for the wars. You didn’t need controlled demolition and into the footprint to have a very violent response by America and convincing people that we need to go and get these terrorists in caves in in Afghanistan and so on. I am pretty sure you didn’t need controlled demolition to get that result.

Kevin Barrett: Josh, what are your thoughts on that?

Josh Mitteldorf: This is Kevin asking?

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I’m curious about your take on that argument, even though it’s not physics. But it’s interesting.

Josh Mitteldorf: I’m reluctant to speculate about the motivations of people who were doing things that are so heinous and so irrational that I can’t put myself in their shoes. I can’t imagine what they’re thinking.

I come back to the physics where I feel like I have some solid ground. So Denis stated that there’s plenty of energy coming out of these things to account for molten steel at the bottom. And that’s not true. You have to look at the energy per unit mass. You could get enough energy to melt some steel, but it wouldn’t be concentrated in the steel. It would be spread over the steel and concrete.

And if you just calculate the amount of energy per unit — let me finish — if you calculate the energy per unit mass that comes from a hundred story building falling down, it’s only one hundredth of what it takes to melt steel. And yet there are films of construction workers, a month after the buildings came down and the demolition workers were taking the thing apart, there were still pools of molten steel, red hot, glowing red hot. You can’t get to those temperatures, let alone sustain those temperatures, without a chemical explosive or the equivalent. The common theory is nanothermite. There is some evidence that they found nanothermite in the dust. Just for background, for people who for whom this is the first time, thermite is a very fine mixture of aluminum and iron. Aluminum loves oxygen even more than iron does. So if you have iron with oxygen attached to it, very fine powder mixed, essentially rust as very fine powder mixed with aluminum, which is not attached to anything, those oxygens will go over from the iron to the aluminum with a tremendous release of energy, enough to melt steel. And indeed, this is one of the ways in which buildings are brought down and in which steel girders are severed, is with the energy of of nanothermite. So it seems completely plausible to me that that’s what they would do. The fact that they found nanothermite in the dust reinforces that. And certainly the fact that there are pools of molten iron existing weeks after the buildings collapsed is conclusive evidence for me that this was not a natural event. Certainly fires with kerosene would not burn nearly that long and would not produce temperatures high enough to make red hot molten steel. Over to you Denis.

Denis Rancourt: I mean, to say that you have to look at the amount of energy delivered per mass of material that was destroyed is one of these, you know, you have to take this average because I say so. That’s not right.

Josh Mitteldorf: You get some concentration, but you don’t get a concentration of one hundred times.

Denis Rancourt: Let me finish. The energy delivery is not going to be distributed uniformly to all of the mass. There are going to be points of friction. There’s all kinds of complex things going on in a collapse of this type with this amount of energy has to be released. So locally, there certainly will be places where you generate an awful lot of heat that’s delivered to the steel. The steel is — especially this steel in this way – was the central structure and all the friction from the collapsing material around it would have been on that steel. So you could certainly melt steel locally. And how once you bury it, if you melted in and delivered a lot of heat to it and then you bury it, how long will it stay in that state? How well insulated is it? I don’t know. But I think…Are you suggesting that there was nanothermite keeping it melted for a week?

Josh Mitteldorf: Yes, there were ongoing chemical reactions (otherwise) it would have cooled well before that without ongoing chemical reactions.

Denis Rancourt: Incompletely reacted reactive material that releases heat would have kept it molten? Is that what you’re suggesting? Well, I don’t know. Again, we’re getting into these really complex thermodynamic calculations of, can you produce molten steel in a complicated explosion like this? And how long will it remain molten? It’s complicated. But the one statement you said, they found nanothermite. Well, no, they didn’t. You know, if you read that paper — and I’ve criticized it as I would act as a reviewer for material science paper, because I am a material scientist, and I’ve stated and explained why there is absolutely no reliable evidence of nanothermite presence in that dust based on the data that was reported in that paper. That is a paper that reviewers should have caught as just being untenable, that much more work was needed. Just to give you one example of one of the fatal flaws in the paper, they analyzed for aluminum by putting dust on an aluminum holder, a pellet. You need a conducting pellet when you do these measurements in electron micro-analysis. Well, they put a little bit of dust on an aluminum slug. You’re always going to get an aluminum signal from that. There’s no way to avoid it. And that’s what they did. And when I pointed this out, they said, yeah, we know, but we’re gonna do the measurements again on on a different slug, on a non-aluminum slug. I said, great, send me the results when you get them. They never did it. So if you were to use one word regarding the results of that paper, it would be unreliable. And I’m being polite. OK. No, none of the people… The first author of the paper is not even a materials scientist. He’d never used these characterization methods before. I taught these characterization methods at the graduate level at university for years. I know exactly what the artifacts are. They did all the things you should never do. And then they concluded something which you couldn’t conclude based on their data. And then it became what everyone’s talking about. So it’s just not reliable at all. There is no evidence of nanothermite presence at all in the dust from that paper.

Now, if in the recent year or two, they redid the measurements and they published it, I didn’t see it. Well, that’s something else. But the paper that everyone is citing and talking about and that was even reviewed in the European Association Journal recently, a couple of years ago, it’s a nonsense paper. I’m sorry, but it’s wrong. And it normally would not have been published. Now, I’m fine with people publishing things on the Internet and having it critiqued openly and so on. But normally using rigorous peer review, that paper would not have been published. In fact, two editors-in-chief of that publication resigned over that publication. Two in a row. So. Yeah. No, you can’t say there was nanothermite there, in my opinion.

Josh Mitteldorf: (Cross talk.)

Kevin Barrett: No, no. Let let let Josh respond to what you just said. It definitely deserves a response.

Josh Mitteldorf: Maybe we’ve said enough about the physics. And in the few minutes we have left, I would like to list the things that Denis and I agree on, the many areas in which the government is lying to us and the scientific community which you count on for integrity has been bought out. The scientific community just comes with this one voice and censors dissent in in areas crucial to public health, to public policy. There’s one area after another. And in that context, it’s so much easier to accept that the government is lying to us about 9/11. So let me list a few of my favorites. And Denis, I’m happy to hear yours. I’ve been involved in the election integrity movement since 2004, ever since electronic voting was introduced in 2002 there’s been statistical evidence—in addition to all of the biases in the system and in the media and the gerrymandering, campaign finance—in addition to all that, they’re stealing an extra 5, 6, sometimes up to 10 percent of the vote electronically after the votes have been cast. There’s evidence for that. And you can’t get it published. No reputable…I’ve been to Science magazine. I’ve been to political journals. This is just too hot a topic to touch.

Vaccines are perhaps the most untouchable area. The caricature that you get is you’re either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine and the anti-vaccine guys are nuts. They’re troglodytes who are trying to bring us back to the days before medicine. The truth is that there are some vaccines that are very safe, very effective, and they’ve been essential to public health. There are others that are inadequate, weakly tested and are actually doing more harm than good. We’ve got to look at the details. And nobody’s looking at the details because the moment you criticize a vaccine online, people jump on you. You’re censored. This is not just a mass of the public expressing their opinions. This is internet trolls who are assigned in the thousands to stamp out any dissent from the idea that vaccines are 100 percent safe and 100 percent effective. Over to you.

Denis Rancourt: I agree that the anti-vaccine criticism is being systemically crushed. And we have to add — and I think we agree on this — vaccines are dangerous and do a lot of harm. It’s not an accident that there is a whole government department that’s in charge of handling complaints and compensating people, millions of dollars per year, continuously. And that the companies that make these things cannot be found legally liable because there is a law that protects them. These are not accidents. It’s horrible what’s happening with vaccines. And the way that the victims are shut up and and put into a system where they have to go legal to make a complaint. And then they get a fraction of what they could get in the civil courts and so on. It’s just horrendous, the whole vaccine system, and the medical big pharma industry that carries it and makes huge profits from it. It’s massive. And it ties into the coronavirus panic that we have now. So so I totally agree with that.

There are so many areas that are censored by the governments and the institutions and powerful players. And there are other areas that are censored simply because people have been trained to react negatively to them. One area of a really hot taboo topic, is pedophilia. Even if you’re a researcher at a university, you cannot start to talk about the nature of pedophilia the nature based on your research of pedophilia. You’re going to be lynched, almost literally lynched by mobs of people who are very concerned as soon as you have the image of a child being sexually molested, people lose it and become vicious. And the true phenomenon of mobbing occurs. I would say that that’s an example where we’ve been trained to respond to certain triggers. It’s cultural that we respond that way.

Josh Mitteldorf: Just let me insert that with Jeffrey Epstein, last fall, there was a danger that this was all going to come out. And Jeffrey Epstein was suicided and within days the media just moved on. There’s a whole mountain of horrific evidence that implicates probably 10 percent, 20 percent of all the politicians in Washington. And we’re just not pursuing it.

Denis Rancourt: Right. That is the other side of it. I was talking about even just an academic possibility of discussing it as a phenomenon. And you’re talking about how it’s prevalent that there are these monsters that are exploiting young people sexually in this way, and that it’s systemically organized and so on, and that it’s being covered up.  There are lots of cases where rings and organized networks like that have been shown to exist. They come up all the time, even even in small towns.

Josh Mitteldorf: It’s my belief that the reason for this is that pedophilia is so shocking that there’s a concerted campaign to get politicians caught on camera in compromising positions. And then they can be blackmailed. And blackmailing politicians is a very lucrative business. It’s really the way Washington is controlled.

But I’d like to move on to other areas in which the press isn’t telling us the truth. I’d offer as a gambit, the fact that Julian Assange is rotting in a prison. He’s being chemically tortured. And his only crime is providing a conduit so that people who have insider knowledge of America’s war crimes can get the information out to the public. And for that, our Constitution is being shredded and they’re doing everything they can not only to shut him up, but to torture him.

Denis Rancourt: Yes. Well, they’re shutting him up personally, but at least we know which jail he’s in. And the fact that he is in jail and his lawyers are still talking to him and they give us reports. So that’s not a complete bubble of silence that you can’t talk about it in that sense.

Another big area where there is strong over the top systemic censorship is the Holocaust denial area. Why is it that in many Western countries, if you suggest that the number of (Jewish) deaths during the Second World War was less than 6 million, you’re going straight to jail. It’s legalized. It’s horrendous. You cannot just have an opinion and just say things. Even as an ordinary citizen who has virtually no influence other than just being able to say things on social media, you’re going to go to jail in France, Germany, Canada and so on. That is very extreme, that there can be a topic that is just not allowed to the point of police coming and getting you and taking you away. So that’s it. There are things that are censored because we’ve been trained and we have a gut reaction and there’s a mobbing that occurs. And there are other things that are very much state organized. There are many laws, criminal code provisions in Canada that punish for hypothetical harm. You don’t have to prove that there was actually a victim that was harmed. You don’t have to prove that the harm was caused by the person you want to put in jail. And you don’t have to prove that there’s a causal link. There are many provisions in the criminal code that are precisely like that. And it’s frightening when you think of it. It destabilizes society that the state can act in such an arbitrary way. I think it destabilizes a democratic society to have laws like that. So there are many there are many areas of censorship and control that are bad for society, but that are part of the power structure as it exists now.

I wrote a big paper that explores three big areas of state control and censorship. And the three areas are gender politics, things related to gender, anti-racism politics, and climate science. And I showed that these three sacred ideologies came into being and were essentially created in the early 1990s in relation to the fall of the Soviet Union, and that the U.N. played a big role in leading international conferences on these topics at that time. And they explicitly said in their documents that we need a new world now. There isn’t the Soviet threat any of you. We have to be especially concerned.

Josh Mitteldorf: We need a new enemy. Sure. I’m going to have to go. I have another call that I’m scheduled to be on. And I would love to continue this conversation. There are so many other areas in which government censorship and government lies are distorting our picture of the world. The one that’s most topical right now is that there’s credible evidence from genetics that the origin of the coronavirus was in a bioweapons lab, and that’s not being discussed. And in fact, there was an article in Science magazine last week that said essentially, how dare you even bring this up? It didn’t refute any of the evidence. It just said it’s not OK to talk about this. I don’t know that the coronavirus is a bioweapon, but I know that it’s not being discussed by scientists who ought to be discussing it. And I do know that the Lyme disease virus, the Lyme bacillus, is definitely a bioweapon and that it engineered. That’s documented in a book that came out a year ago. And again, it’s not reaching the public. It’s not being discussed in mainstream journals or in the mainstream press. So that sets a precedent. We know that the US and China both have extensive bioweapons research facilities to the extent of tens of billions of dollars a year. And we have to ask the question, where did the Covid virus come from?

Kevin Barrett: Okay, I think we’ve hit the end of this particular 9/11 physics debate. Well, thank you so much, both of you. Josh Mittledorf and Denis Rancourt. So, Rick Shaddock of the Association for 9/11 Truth Awareness, please wrap it up.

Rick Shaddock: Thank you so much. This event was a very stimulating and interesting debate from two top physicists, one (formerly) from the University of Ottawa, and Josh Mitteldorf, a Ph.D. in astrophysics from the University of Pennsylvania. And we’re so happy that you participated in this debate. We budget about, with our limited donations, about a hundred dollars. We would like to split, especially since Bitcoin is down to about 5000 now, we’ll be sending you both the point zero zero nine one one bitcoin. Thank you so much. Use it for your research or give it to your favorite charity.

Denis Rancourt: I was at the University of Ottawa. No longer.

Kevin Barrett: All right. Another great mind outside the academy. Thank you so much, everybody. This is the kind of conversation I really enjoy. And I look forward to carrying on more such conversations with all three of you in the future. So good night, God bless.

[1]Possibly a mistaken reference to the huge explosions that wrecked the lobby and injured people in the sub-basements of the North Towerbeforethe plane impact?

[2]Douglas Rushkoff, Coercion: Why We Listen to What “They” Say. From my review:

Oddly enough, 9/11 was apparently designed with the help of focus groups:
…The trick only needs to work long enough to win (or avoid) a war. Even if “the truth” emerges sometime later, at least the primary objective has already been achieved…when American corporate and governmental interests adopted these techniques for use against the American people, they needed to cloak their assault in a seemingly benign manifestation: the focus group. About ten “average” members of a target population are brought into a room and asked to discuss an issue while a team of researchers, clients, and a camera record their responses from behind a one-way mirror. A researcher stays in the room with the subjects, asking them questions and pushing them in new directions…

Bob Deutsch, an anthropologist [and legendary psy-op focus group guru] who worked for the Department of Defense…led focus groups revealing Americans’ irrational beliefs about Japan. “You want to uncover in your audience what I call a ‘spasm of sentiment’,” he explained. “It’s their illogic–their emotional logic.” He told us how in focus groups with average American citizens, he learned that most people still associate the Japanese with Pearl Harbor: “People say, for example, ‘Japan took our lives in 1941, and they took our livelihoods in 1991.’ Because Japan disrupted America’s self-mythology of being invincible, the nation would never be forgiven in the irrational American sentiment.” (140)

The authors of 9/11 needed a horrifyingly spectacular, murderous attack on the American “homeland” in order to elicit this “Pearl Harbor effect.” They needed to “disrupt America’s self-mythology of being invincible” so that Arabs and Muslims “would never be forgiven in the irrational American sentiment.” They were not interested in triggering just one quick war in Afghanistan, or a second one in Iraq. They were after “the war that will not end in our lifetimes”–an ongoing war that would remove Americans’ Constitutional liberties, massively increase military expenditures, and legitimize attacks against Middle Eastern nations for decades into the future, on behalf of Israeli expansionism and the petrodollar hegemony on which it depends.

9/11, in short, was an apocalypse of coercion. It was a psy-op on a scale of murderousness and mendacity to make the Reichstag Fire look like a kid playing with matches.

 This show was broadcast on April 2, 2020.

      Listen to the Archive Here


Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Show is independently produced and hosted by Kevin Barrett and these shows are externally produced content. All externally produced content broadcast on No Lies Radio is the sole responsibility of the program-content producer and is not the responsibility of NoLiesRadio.org. Any questions or concerns should be directed to the content producer.


Tags: , , , ,

Comments are closed.

CLICK HERE to Listen with iTunes, VLC, Winamp, or other players
No Lies Radio Visitors

Join Our Email List

* required



By joining our email list you agree to our Privacy Policy.


May 2020
« Apr    

User Login