Emails with Mr. X

OCT was dominant 2001 - 2008.  RCTO/CD theory rising 2009 - 2013

Some scientists spoke out for the OCT in 2001 - 2008 when there was no other explanation for 9/11 on the table,
and most Americans believed that Bush and Cheney would not lie about WMDs.

But more and more scientists see plausible alternative explanations, including Remote Control Take Over (RCTO) and Controlled Demolition (CD) that fully explains the same evidence, plus more. There are even movies with alternative explanations. Fewer and fewer people and scientists defend the Offishy Theory each day.

Look at the dates of the papers, from the list posted on JREF.
1. Go to
2. Ctrl+F for 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and you will find some papers
2. Ctrl+F for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013 - No find

The OCT was dominant for 8 years. But the CD theory has been rising its 4th year.
Also notice that the 2001 - 2008 papers have no real life material experiments, no replications, and been largely debunked.
None of the 2001 - 2008 studies explain the beam in the AmEx, or the 2.4 seconds of free fall in WTC 7.

That's why there is no organization of architects, engineers, or scientists defending the official theory any more. The mark of a failed theory is that no scientists defend it any more. It goes the way of the flat Earth theory.

As there are more and more questions about 9/11, there should be more papers defending the OCT.
But no. There are fewer and fewer papers trying to defend the Bush-Cheney theory.

2009 is when the Bentham study came out, (peer reviewed by Dr. David Griscom) and
A follow up study to replicate it, at an independent lab, is now in the works.
Dr. Millette has not published his study in over a year. continues to publish papers, right up until March 2013.

It is far more likely that at an investigation, whether it is in the USA, or the International Court at the Hague,
experts from Columbia, MIT, Yale, and Harvard on the AE911Truth list would show up and testify.
Controlled Demolition experts would concur that absolutely, controlled demolition happened on 911.

Former FBI Special Agents would come forward and testify their prosecution of terrorist suspects was thwarted from above, for no good reason.
CIA agents such as Ray McGovern would testify that the Bush Administration encouraged "cooked" intelligence to justify the wars.

All the Columbia PhD can say is that they could not distinguish the seismic signals from debris falling to the ground from explosions many floors above - which make negligible seismic signals. Explosions from higher floors make no seismic signals measurable from Columbia. Think about it. Seismic waves are just vibrations. It is also hard to tell which direction they came from.

Dr. Shyam Sunder would not show up. He has refused to speak about 9/11 since 2009. He did his job, lied, got his raise, got his award, and wants to go on to other things.

Steel going sideways over 600 feet for over 60 mph and sticking in the AmEx building is the smoking gun for anyone who knows basic physics.

More and more members of, the professors of the future, are challenging what their professors say about 9/11.

No self respecting scientist would risk a perjury charge by testifying under oath for such an obvious bunch of lies, and violations of Laws of Nature, now that they have been pointed out.


To: Mr. X
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:02 AM
Subject: Beam from WTC1 hitting AmEx Bldg 600 feet away at 45 degree angle

Here, attached, is a new diagram for my blog (always careful not to identify you) to clarify the #1 smoking gun of 9/11.

1. To clarify "steel that flies sideways 600 feet at 60 mph" technically it went down and sideways, not just horizontally. How did the steel beams stick in 20th floor of the AmEx Building like darts?   It would help if we knew which floor of WTC 1 the beam came from.  The lower the floor, the more powerful the explosives had to be. 
Let's try a simple experiment at 1 to 100 scale.  WTC 1 was about 1360 feet.  Each of the 110 floors was about 12 feet.   Giving you the best possible scenario, assuming the beam came from the highest 110th floor, for every 2 feet down, the knife/beam has to go 1 foot laterally. At the 65th floor, for every 1 foot down, it had to go 1 foot laterally.
Drop a steel knife (the steel beam) from 11.2 feet (13.6 feet minus 2.4 feet for the 12' x 20 AmEx floors) and see if it sticks into the wall 6 feet to the right (600 feet to AmEx).  
Note that for floors higher than 65, the beam would hit the wall at less than 45 degrees, a glancing blow, and tend to drop off, not stick like a dart.  Try hitting a dart board downward at less than 45 degrees.  It tends to move on to the floor.
So the beam probably came from a floor between 20 and 65, meaning it had more lateral thrust than vertical.  Only explosives, not gravity, could do that.
The perpetrators blew it (pun intended) by using too many explosives, leaving obvious clues.  They may have gotten away with it, by using fewer explosives.  Their greed, trying to save money on the ground zero clean up, gave them away.

2. Show me concrete that holds many floors that suddenly crushes like air for 8 floors. Are you concerned about the floors beneath you now giving way? No, because concrete and steel are so strong.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mr. X
To: Rick
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: Steel Truth is not a "majority rules" matter Senator Mike Gravel Experts Speak Out on Colorado PBS

Your first argument: No one has tried to replicate because physical forces don't scale. It makes no sense to replicate steel beams. Tiny model steel beams act differently. However, replication has been done through mathematics and computer modeling, and the math is now considered peer-reviewed science---which is to say it is cited by other scientists and has been used to make fundamental changes in building design.
Tellingly, the Codes for building design have not changed much at all.  What is to change besides making them more resilient to aircraft hitting them?  Do you know of any buildings being restructured or upgraded as a result of 9/11?  None.
The central argument is: is it possible to wire a building for CD while occupied in seven months
The work could have started years before 9/11
without any noticing the work
Sure people noticed men working, an ordinary occurrence.
and without removing the non-load bearing walls,
Not required.  Elevator shafts and above ceiling panels is enough access
which is done in every CD?
This was not an ordinary CD
If it is, what are those mechanics?
Who were the workers?  Why were they not interviewed?  I can only find 1 guy from Ace interviewed by USA Today on 9/11.
Time to cut through 4,000 beams per building,
No beams had to be cut through.  Just place the thermite and explosives next to them
time to put the plaster and track lighting back and clean up,
They had from 10 months to possibly years.  One floor per day.
get through security locks on individual offices without anyone noticing,
SecuriCom had all the keys
number of deliveries of materials required which no one noticed
Yes, many trucks coming in between 2:00 am and 5:00am were noticed
including FBI interviewed security,
FBI Agent John O'Neill was killed on his first day at work on Tuesday 9/11
If Larry Silverstein let him start on Monday, a more typical starting day,
he may have found the explosives.
explain why jet fuel burning didn't burn off charges and fuses so CD would not work,
The boxes containing explosives, disguised as "emergency elevator brakes" could be fire proof
explaining why no explosive reside or fuses have been found,
Explosive residue has been found - unexploded thermitic material (purpose of study)
Fuses were closest and would be blown to tiny bits. 
explain away the demolition company understanding that you can't use a remote detanator because the timing is too critical.
Wireless remote detonation is just as fast as wired.
Evidently they were not as reliable, because we see "squibs" where the detonation was too early, causing small explosions of about 10 floors below the rest of the explosion.
>Watching it would answer most of your arguments.
I'm relying on you to answer just one of my arguments, since you listen to these people, and so far you haven't addressed a single one, including all the obvious arguments about the what's the point in watching a video?
This shows that many experts do come forward, do more than sign a petition, and speak about Controlled Demolition.
Do they reference scientific papers in that video?
If so, why don't we cut to the chase and you send me a link to those scientific papers?
The Senate will need those papers peer-reviewed. I've lowered the goofy bar, and am requesting anything written that has been reviewed professionally (I'll even take anything submitted for publication if I can get the Journal's response).
The goofy bar is pretty low for you.


Mr. X

>I would care if some MIT civil engineer or physicist from MIT had your opinion about 911
I would pay good money to see the expression on your face right now.
If you could please take a photo with your phone and email it to me, I'll send $100 to MSAE.
How about 16 Signers on the Petition from Massachusetts Institute of Technology?
Albert Skane, Systems Engineering BSEE & BS(Sloan), MIT; MA Econ, UofMDBoston, MA
John Schaefer, Consulting Engineer Lic: CA EE 9215PhD Stanford; MS San Jose State; BS MITArcata, CA
Donald W. McGrathB.S. Metallurgy, MIT Saint Helena, CA
Cynthia Howard, AIA Lic: MArch MIT, 1243 ME, 4486 MABiddeford Pool, ME
George Owen, AIALic: IL 1018627, B.Architecture, MIT Wallingford (Philadelphia), PA
David Anthony Dorau, P.E.Lic: 023647 MO B.S., Iowa State U., M.S., MIT Lenexa, KS
Michael T. DiMercurio, P.E.MS, Mechanical Engineering, MIT Newtown, PA
Robert J. Randall, P.E.Lic: 52752 NY, 10089 CT, 32741 NJ, E-25587 WIBS,Nav. Arch. & Marine Eng., MIT Mohegan Lake, NY
George Everett, 9/11 Truth Seeker BS, USCGA; BSEE, MIT. Edmonds, WA
Robert J. Walter, P.E.Lic: Connecticut - lapsed/retired SBME MIT Rochester, NY
Olga Kahn, Architect Lic: #7382 MAM. Arch., M.I.T. Wellfleet, MA
John Edward Anderson, PhD Professor Ph.D. Astronautics, M.I.T. Minneapolis, MN
S. Kay Kuhne, ArchitectLic: FL AR #12498 M.Arch AS, Architecture, M.I.T. Tallahassee, FL
Benjamin Erwin, B.S. Engineering B.S. Aerospace Engineering, M.I.T. Cambridge, MA
Joseph L. DeClue B.S. EE M.I.T. Santa Ana, CA
Dr. Jeff King, MD, SB EE, MIT.  (Science Baccalaureate in Electrical Engineering)  He was an electrical engineer for 8 years.  Also he went to med school and was a family practice physician for 27 years.   (deceased in 2012 under suspicious circumstances)
Dr. King gave a presentation at a conference and here is a transcript of his paper.
Presentation at Confronting the Evidence Conference 9/11/04: "When I first saw the [WTC] collapses I was absolutely convinced they were not spontaneous. ...

"And what we have learned in the years since then (2004) only confirms that initial impression. At the simplest level there is a gross violation of conservation of energy: for the towers to fall at or near free-fall speed, all the stored gravitational energy would have had to be used to accelerate their own mass downward. The same energy can’t be used twice, which is to say that any “work” extracted, for example to pulverize concrete, will slow the collapse by a corresponding amount.

In the case of the twin towers even a rough calculation of the amount of energy needed to pulverize all the concrete and gypsum to the very fine dust observed (and without including the energy needed to crumple and deform steel) indicates that it would have far exceeded the entire gravitational potential energy of the structures.

As measurements by Cahill* have shown, dust particles were mostly <30 microns, with a sizeable fraction smaller than 0.25 micron. Not only is an immense amount of energy needed to break most of the chemical bonds holding the concrete together, but there is no mechanism that can be postulated with only a gravitational collapse that might account for such rapid and complete pulverization. Such a process is almost by definition an explosive event: the almost instantaneous conversion of a slab of concrete into a rapidly expanding cloud of dust.

 The obvious question is what does it mean that there was a controlled demolition. At the simplest level, it means that someone had a lot access to the buildings over a long enough period of time to set this up. It implies, as many other things have tonight, that the people who had effective control of the site had an interest in having it scrubbed and making sure that no information was available; that a forensic reconstruction couldn't be done.

Even in much smaller catastrophes we typically will reconstruct things as completely as possible. For example with TWA Flight 800 pieces were dredged off the bottom of the sea. A complete reconstruction was done to allow a detailed analysis. In this case, just the opposite was done. ... "
*  Thomas Cahill PhD, Professor Emeritus, University of California, Davis
Trade Center Debris Pile Was a Chemical Factory, Says New Study
So Dr. Cahill and the University of California are "in on it" too -
trying to convince the public that there were explosives in the WTC towers?
If the WTC just caught fire and collapsed, why would there be so many toxic materials besides the asbestos?  
Office buildings, computers, and office equipment are not built of materials. 
>It has been ten years of Truthers making statements for which they have no evidence,
Except when they do have evidence, a lot, and the official theory has no evidence that pans out, and the FBI spokesman admits it.

>You think members of Congress will accept it?
Absolutely.  Why not?   Others like Senator Tom Harkin and Senator Mike Gravel question the offishy 9/11 story.
You could never pay me enough to go to a Senator and say that steel falls sideways.  But going to a Senator with accepted Physics is totally fine.  That's why I felt totally comfortable taking the DVDs to Senator Chuck Grassley. got positive feedback, and plan to bring more DVDs to Congressmen and Senators.
We had a nice dinner meeting of ANETA at one of the member's home in Bethesda, and are planning our annual conference for the weekend before September 11.



----- Original Message -----
To: Mr. X
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2013 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: Jody Gibbsof Yale, Harvard and Professor at MIT. David Griscom PhD Brown Robert Bowman PhD CalTech 30 from Ivy League universities

A sign of desperation, and tactic of some JREFers and red necks is to call someone smarter a "boy".  
Surely, you can do better than that.
Dave Lewis went to Berkeley, hardly a comparison to Harvard, Yale, and MIT. 
If you have just a few exceptions, such as one guy who somehow got a PhD, that does not make a rule.
Harvard, Yale, and MIT would not have the world wide reputation they have if exceptions were the rule.
Exceptions are exceptions.  Life is a field of all possibilities.
Plus, Mr. Gibbs is not only an Ivy League graduate.  He won scholarships. 
You and I got into good universities, but not Ivy League. 
Plus he taught at highly competitive MIT.
We taught BFBLs and at CCC.
Mr. Gibbs is not the only Ivy Leaguer speaking out for a new investigation of 9/11.
Dr. David Griscom is a PhD in Physics from Brown University.
He was selected among hundreds by NASA as a Team Leader to study the Moon rocks,
that took millions of dollars to obtain and bring back to Earth.
Joshua Blakeney's PhD advisor is Graeme MacQueen, a Harvard graduate
University of Lethbridge scholarship of $7714 to study 9/11
Attached is a spread sheet I made in 2011 of the AE911 Truth petition list, when it had 1428 signers.
The latest one is at  (now 1700+)
In Excel, you can click on the name to launch your browser to see their Profile details.
I did a Ctrl+F Find search for various top universities.
Harry G. Robinson III, FAIALic:   Architect 2667, Washington, DCB Arch and MCP Harvard U. / MCPUD Harvard, Washington, DC
Dennis R. Holloway, ArchitectLic:   New Mexico Architect License #002569B.Arch., Univ. of Mich., MAUD, Harvard GRio Rancho, NM
Edward Ussery, EITBSME-UCLA, MMS-Harvard Medical Sch.Irvine, CA
William S. Gravely, ArchitectLic:   AR 92452M.Arch, Harvard University Tallahassee, FL
Eason Cross, FAIALic:   Virginia and Maryland BA Harvard, MArch. HGSDAlexandria, VA
Deane Rykerson, AIA NCARB LEED APLic:   MA 8400BArch Boston AC MDes Harvard Cambridge, MA
Wellington Wells, ArchitectLic:   ARC10000875 ME, 1976; Arq. 8612 PR, 1965M. Arch. Harvard Peterborough, NH
Paul Stevenson Oles, FAIALic:   MASSACHUSETTS 2754MArch, Architecture, YaleSanta Fe, NM
Andrew Wolff, Architect, AIA,LEEDLic:   30395 CAM Arch, Yale UniversityLos Angeles, CA
David A. Johnson, Dr., FAICP, PhDBA (Arch) & MCP, Yale; PhD, CornellAsheville, NC
Richard N. Yale, EngineerLic:   040023 CABE Civil Engineering Univ. of So. Calif.Desert Hot Springs, CA
Ronaldo Bassini, B.S.Mech Eng & M.ArchBS Yale College M Arch Columbia Univ.Santa Rosa, CA
Gabrielle Von Bernstorff, Architecte SIAMaster of Architecture Princeton UniversVevey, Vaud – Switzerland
William F. Stubbeman MD, MD, BSE (Physician, Mechanical and Aerospace EnginLic:   Medical License # G079364, CA, (no eng license)MD, Columbia BSE, Engineering, PrincetonLos Angeles, CA
Erk Erginer, Dr.MSc. Tech. U. Istanbul; Ph.D. Brown U.Winston-Salem, NC
David Griscom, PhD Brown, Physics, Naval Research Lab, NASA, Instructor of Engineering, Tuczon AZ
Joao Cardoso, EngineerM.S., Engineering, Columbia University Palo Alto, CA
Nina Le Baron, Architect AIAM.S. Historic Preservation-Columbia UnivFriday Harbor, WA

Ronaldo Bassini, B.S.Mech Eng & M.ArchBS Yale College M Arch Columbia Univ.Santa Rosa, CA
Arman Chowdhury, architectural staffMs . Arch UPenn B.arch BUET Philadelphia, PA

Rex W. Ingram, ArchitectLic:   20220M. Arch., UPENNSalem, MA
Albert Skane, Systems EngineeringBSEE & BS(Sloan), MIT; MA Econ, UofMDBoston, MA
John Schaefer, Consulting EngineerLic:   CA EE 9215PhD Stanford; MS San Jose State; BS MITArcata, CA
Donald W. McGrathB.S. Metallurgy, MIT Saint Helena, CA
Cynthia Howard, AIALic:   MArch MIT, 1243 ME, 4486 MABiddeford Pool, ME
George Owen, AIALic:   IL 1018627,B.Architecture, MIT Wallingford (Philadelphia), PA
David Anthony Dorau, P.E.Lic:   023647 MOB.S., Iowa State U., M.S., MIT Lenexa, KS
Michael T. DiMercurio, P.E.MS, Mechanical Engineering, MIT Newtown, PA
Robert J. Randall, P.E.Lic:   52752 NY, 10089 CT, 32741 NJ, E-25587 WIBS,Nav. Arch. & Marine Eng., MIT Mohegan Lake, NY
George Everett, 9/11 Truth SeekerBS, USCGA; BSEE, MIT.Edmonds, WA
Robert J. Walter, P.E.Lic:   Connecticut - lapsed/retired SBME MIT Rochester, NY
Olga Kahn, ArchitectLic:   #7382 MAM. Arch., M.I.T. Wellfleet, MA
John Edward Anderson, PhD ProfessorPh.D. Astronautics, M.I.T. Minneapolis, MN
S. Kay Kuhne, ArchitectLic:   FL AR #12498M.Arch AS, Architecture, M.I.T. Tallahassee, FL
Benjamin Erwin, B.S. EngineeringB.S. Aerospace Engineering, M.I.T. Cambridge, MA
Joseph L. DeClueB.S. EE M.I.T. Santa Ana, CA
Other 9/11 activists include:
Peter Dale Scott. McGill 1949, Oxford University 1952, PhD McGill 1955 Canadian UN Ambassador
Niels Harrit, PhD, Chemistry, published over 50 papers in peer reviewed science journals.
Mark Basile - in process of replicating study of Dr. Niels Harrit by sending WTC dust to an independent laboratory.
At some point you have to accept that there are very intelligent people who believe that gravity works vertically, not laterally, that concrete is more resistant than air, that NORAD should be able to get a jet 9 miles within an hour, and therefore question 9/11.
>The whole thing is so fucking goofy it blows my mind.
The only things that are goofy are:
* Steel falling sideways
* Concrete crushing like air
* NORAD not going 9 miles within 1 hour to protect DC
* Bush and Cheney refusing to testify under oath or allow notes
----- Original Message -----
From: Mr. X
To: Rick
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: Jody Gibbsof Yale, Harvard and Professor at MIT. In his own words


Your PhD boy admitted on one of the radio interview links you sent me that there is not a shred of evidence that nano-thermite even exists and that there is no evidence that thermite in any form can separate two steel beams. He says Ryan got made at him when they had this conversation over lunch. 

Why should I care what some MIT architect thinks about 911? The guy running the Creationist lab in KY is an astro-physicist with a PhD from Univ of Berkeley. (I would care if some MIT civil engineer or physicist from MIT had your opinion about 911 and wrote down what he thought and why---the specific details the 911 Truthers avoid--in a white paper that others could then examine). 

The whole thing is so fucking goofy it blows my mind.  

Mr. X


On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 8:55 AM Rick wrote:
You can contact Jody Gibbs, who organized an AE911Truth event in Tucson
indicating that this Yale and Harvard grad, and MIT Professor is into 9/11.
Mr. Gibbs got accepted to 2 universities we did not even try to apply to.
He taught at one of the world's top universities, one we could not qualify for.

He is better to talk to than Tom McLaughlin.  Mr. Gibbs is retired and his
address is PO Box 1870, Tuczon AZ 85702-1870.
You can hear him in his own words on this video shown on Colorado PBS   One of their longest running featured videos.
Mr. Gibbs is not just "signing a petition at a mall" but coming forward and
speaking out, along with many Civil Engineers and Structural Engineers.
He says "Gravity works vertically, not laterally."   (see transcript of MP3 below)

The S.E. degree is even more relevant than a C.E. to office building collapses.    around the 43 minute point
If you want, I can give you the weekly Verification Team conference call number. 
You can dial in, don't say anything, and just listen.  You can hear their
discussions about candidates for the petition list, for example things like:
"I called Joe Jones and asked him to fax his civil engineering degree.
Mary Smith has not faxed hers in 3 weeks, so I'm skeptical about her."
Intelligent people are outraged that some people committed mass murder
then lied to us, to get Americans to accept pre-emptive wars and drones?

Interview with Jody Gibbs, Architect

1. Background and Credentials

I'm Jody Gibbs, I'm a registered professional architect. I was licensed for general building and heavy construction as well as architecture over 35 years ago. I've practiced in the United States and in other countries. I was educated at Yale University, the Harvard Graduate School of Design, the Yale Graduate School of Art and Architecture, I was honored with a midcareer fellowship at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, and I taught at MIT as an adjunct faculty for a number of years in the Graduate School of Architecture.


2. Reasons We Need a New Investigation

(0:30) My reasons for looking and demanding and urging people to see that we get a judicial investigation are really very simple. Among many of the reasons are one, we have no explanation of how the concrete was pulverized. It takes an enormous amount of energy, way beyond what we have in aviation fuel. Secondly, aviation fuel does not melt steel and no high-rise steel structure has ever been destroyed by a fire in the history of construction. Third, we have eyewitness testimony (1:00) of firemen, policemen, news reporters and occupants of the building to explosions--an enormous number of eyewitness testimonies. Fourth, the buildings fall at a speed which can only occur if the structure has been removed, the vertical structure. We have ample evidence of that--large multi-ton beams were hurled hundreds of yards laterally. Gravity works vertically, not laterally. We also now have now the evidence of thermite and thermate explosives.


3. The 9/11 Commission Was a Bunch of Politicians

(1:30) There are many other reasons we need an investigation. Most of these things were not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report. I would remind people that was not a judicial body. There were no rules of evidence. They were the same group of politicians which have sent us to war, mismanaged our economy, and the many other things. It is for this reason I urge all architects and engineers to look into the matter, look at the evidence that is available and sign on to the demands of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 (2:00) Truth in demanding that we get a judicial investigation.


4. An Investigation Following Judicial Practice is Necessary

(2:06) Judicial investigation is--we've never had one. Judicial investigation means you have rules of evidence, you have a prosecutor. You see, when someone is hurt in an accident in this country you don't hand money and say "just be still," you don't have politicians talk about it. You have a prosecutor, you look into the evidence, they bring charges accordingly. It's a process; it's a long-developed process, it's a judicial process. A commission is merely a group of politicians talking. It means nothing.

----- Original Message -----
From: Rick
To: Mr. X
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 5:16 PM
Subject: Jody Gibbsof Yale, Harvard and Professor at MIT. Joshua Blakeny, PhD scholarship recipient for research on 9/11

Here again is the info on Jody Gibbs
Yale B.A.
Yale, Masters in Architecture
Harvard, Loeb Fellow, Graduate School of Design
MIT, Adjunct Faculty, Graduate School of Architecture
AE911Truth petition signer and
featured in Experts Speak Out (one of the top videos on Colorado Public TV)