Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes it is a good report, and these are credible professionals.

A full, independent investigation would be a good place to go from there.

Great idea....now who would that be? How about...Iran!

[Riverwind]

A full, independent investigation would be a good place to go from there.

Not unless someone can turn up some direct evidence.

You seem to missing that an important part of determining the plausibility of a claim is the availability of supporting evidence that one would expect if the claim was true. For example, if someone claimed that a murder victim was shot by the police then one would expect the body to show evidence of a gunshot wound. If there is no such evidence then it does not make a difference how strong the other circumstantial evidence is because the claim can't be true.

Same goes with the 9/11 conspiracy theories. If there was really a plot that involved 100s of people then after 8 years someone somewhere would have provided direct evidence that such a plot did occur. The fact that no such evidence has appeared makes the claim of a conspiracy extremely improbable.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

A full, independent investigation would be a good place to go from there.

Further to the point above, I'm not sure that any investigation would quell the storm that is generated by conspiracy theorists. I have even seen them post that they will *never* believe that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

[Riverwind]

I'm not sure that any investigation would quell the storm that is generated by conspiracy theorists.

Storm? What storm? A few internet sites? This story had some legs initially because there we many unexplained issues. However, most of those issues (i.e. how could 3 towers fall straight down without an explosion) have been resolved.

I have even seen them post that they will *never* believe that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

Perhaps because the claim is so rediculously implausible that it is not even worth entertaining the notion of withholding judgement until the 'facts are in'. It is really no different from someone claiming that UFOs are replacing people with pod people that are laying the ground work for an alien invasion. Should we have an inquiry to investigate that possibility? I believe the evidence supporting UFO abductions is as strong as the evidence supporting bombs in the WTC. Edited April 18, 2009 by Riverwind

[tango]

Storm? What storm? A few internet sites? This story had some legs initially because there we many unexplained issues. However, most of those issues (i.e. how could 3 towers fall straight down without an explosion) have been resolved.

Perhaps because the claim is so rediculously implausible that it is not even worth entertaining the notion of withholding judgement until the 'facts are in'. It is really no different from someone claiming that UFOs are replacing people with pod people that are laying the ground work for an alien invasion. Should we have an inquiry to investigate that possibility? I believe the evidence supporting UFO abductions is as strong as the evidence supporting bombs in the WTC.

Oh it's quite different from that.

The evidence of explosives in the dust from the WTC ... recently published ...

How is it that the 'official' explanation didn't reveal and explain that?

Didn't even investigate that?

How is it to be explained by 'official' theories?

It raises questions that have not been answered, and demands further investigation.

Truth isn't dangerous to the public. It's people who seek to hide the truth that are dangerous to the public.

Edited April 19, 2009 by tango

[Smallc]

Oh God...

[bush_cheney2004]

....It raises questions that have not been answered, and demands further investigation.

Truth isn't dangerous to the public. It's people who seek to hide the truth that are dangerous to the public.

So knock yourself out...investigate away. The Americans have finished their investigation save for some NIST modeling and building code changes...spent hundreds of millions of dollars, but not to satisfy you or your criticisms. It owes the world nothing in the way of additional "official" investigations, if only because credibility would always be suspect by the "Truthers".

Hell, these type of people still worry about who "really" killed JFK.

[Riverwind]

The evidence of explosives in the dust from the WTC ... recently published ...

Does not come close the the evidence supporting aliens among us

Seems to me we should be having a public inquiry into the roswell incident first. The idea that the US government might be hiding proof of alien life is much more disturbing.

Have you heard of the secret earthquake machine that US government has? The evidence that it was used to cause the China earthquake and the Boxing Day Tsunami is quite compelling. 100,000s of people died. Don't you think those stories deserve more attention than 9/11? If not why not?

Edited April 19, 2009 by Riverwind

[tango]

Does not come close the the evidence supporting aliens among us

Seems to me we should be having a public inquiry into the roswell incident first. The idea that the US government might be hiding proof of alien life is much more disturbing.

Have you heard of the secret earthquake machine that US government has? The evidence that it was used to cause the China earthquake and the Boxing Day Tsunami is quite compelling. 100,000s of people died. Don't you think those stories deserve more attention? If not why not?

Hmm ... why not base your criticisms on the report itself?

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?...cbc32054cbaeacb

The expectation at that time was that a careful

examination of the dust might yield evidence to support the

hypothesis that explosive materials other than jet fuel caused

the extraordinarily rapid and essentially total destruction of

the WTC buildings.

It was learned that a number of people had saved samples

of the copious, dense dust, which spread and settled across

Manhattan. Several of these people sent portions of their

samples to members of this research group. This paper discusses

four separate dust samples collected on or shortly

after 9/11/2001. Each sample was found to contain red/gray

chips. All four samples were originally collected by private

citizens who lived in New York City at the time of the tragedy.

These citizens came forward and provided samples for

analysis in the public interest, allowing study of the 9/11

dust for whatever facts about the day might be learned from

the dust.

Edited April 19, 2009 by tango

[Riverwind]

Hmm ... why not base your criticisms on the report itself?

Why don't you explain why the 'evidence' in your report is any more conclusive than the evidence of UFOs from the Roswell Incident? Why is it anymore compelling than the photographic evidence from the skies before the sichan earthquake?

[bush_cheney2004]

Hmm ... why not base your criticisms on the report itself?

We have....the samples are suspect from the git go, regardless of any analysis or interpretations of analysis.

[tango]

We have....the samples are suspect from the git go, regardless of any analysis or interpretations of analysis.

How are such samples to be collected to suit your restrictions?

[Riverwind]

How are such samples to be collected to suit your restrictions?

It is not his restriction. The police have strict rules regarding evidence collection. If they are not followed the evidence is not admissable in court.

[bush_cheney2004]

How are such samples to be collected to suit your restrictions?

C'mon...you know the drill.

Where are the controlled samples from other locations ? Samples from the same area before the conflagration? Chain of custody seals? Affidavits? Composition analysis and profile for sample constituents (i.e. elemental and compound distributions). Etc. Etc.

Hell, this guy could find "nano-thermitics" in my vacuum cleaner dust bag.

Edited April 19, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[tango]

C'mon...you know the drill.

Where are the controlled samples from other locations ? Samples from the same area before the conflagration? Chain of custody seals? Affidavits? Composition analysis and profile for sample constituents (i.e. elemental and compound distributions). Etc. Etc.

Hell, this guy could find "nano-thermitics" in my vacuum cleaner bag.

Well, apparently the 'official' report didn't follow that procedure.

And obviously, you haven't read the report.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, apparently the 'official' report didn't follow that procedure.

So what....the official report wasn't trying to prove anything.

And obviously, you haven't read the report.

Lots of pictures...I love the one of the technician heating up the "sample"....such drama!

[Michael Hardner]

Here's what it says in the report:

a general request was issued for samples of the

WTC dust. The expectation at that time was that a careful

examination of the dust might yield evidence to support the

hypothesis that explosive materials other than jet fuel caused

the extraordinarily rapid and essentially total destruction of

the WTC buildings.

[Riverwind]

Hell, this guy could find "nano-thermitics" in my vacuum cleaner dust bag.

It is a pretty impressive feat to find conclusive evidence from a few hundred kgs of thermite amidst a few 100 thousand tonnes of rubble.

[bush_cheney2004]

Here's what it says in the report:

That's swell, but does not meet the requisites for a well designed study with such implications (pre-determined it would seem). It is not difficult to find pre-9/11 dust from Manhattan. My brother has plenty of it in his Midtown flat.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is a pretty impressive feat to find conclusive evidence from a few hundred kgs of thermite amidst a few 100 thousand tonnes of rubble.

That's what kills me about the report's very short conclusion....as if it was written before any analysis at all.

Edited April 19, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[tango]

So what....the official report wasn't trying to prove anything.

Exactly! They were trying to prove ... nothing!

Well, since you can't click a link, read, and intelligently critique, maybe you can do 2 out of 3!

What's your problem with this?

The earliest-collected sample came from Mr. Frank Delessio

who, according to his videotaped testimony [17], was

on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time

the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He

saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick

dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful

of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the

end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the

North Tower. He then went to visit his friend, Mr. Tom

Breidenbach, carrying the dust in his hand, and the two of

them discussed the dust and decided to save it in a plastic

bag. On 11/15/2007, Breidenbach sent a portion of this dust

to Dr. Jones for analysis. Breidenbach has also recorded his

testimony about the collection of this dust sample on videotape

[17]. Thus, the Delessio/Breidenbach sample was collected

about ten minutes after the second tower collapsed. It

was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steelcutting

or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began

later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC 7,

which fell hours later.

On the morning of 9/12/2001, Mr. Stephen White of New

York City entered a room in his apartment on the 8th floor of

1 Hudson Street, about five blocks from the WTC. He found

a layer of dust about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry

near a window which was open about 4 inches (10 cm).

Evidently the open window had allowed a significant amount

of dust from the WTC destruction the day before to enter the

room and cover the laundry. He saved some of the dust and,

on 2/02/2008, sent a sample directly to Dr. Jones for analysis.

Another sample was collected from the apartment building

at 16 Hudson Street by Mr. Jody Intermont at about 2 pm

on 9/12/2001. Two small samples of this dust were simultaneously

sent to Dr. Jones and to Kevin Ryan on 2/02/2008

for analysis. Intermont sent a signed affidavit with each

sample verifying that he had personally collected the (nowsplit)

sample; he wrote:

“This dust, which came from the ‘collapsed’

World Trade Center Towers, was collected from

my loft at the corner of Reade Street and Hudson

Street on September 12, 2001. I give permission

to use my name in connection to this

evidence”. [signed 31 January 2008 in the presence

of a witness who also signed his name].

On the morning of 9/11/2001, Ms. Janette MacKinlay

was in her fourth-floor apartment at 113 Cedar St./110 Liberty

St. in New York City, across the street from the WTC

plaza. As the South Tower collapsed, the flowing cloud of

dust and debris caused windows of her apartment to break

inward and dust filled her apartment. She escaped by quickly

wrapping a wet towel around her head and exiting the building.

The building was closed for entry for about a week. As

soon as Ms. MacKinlay was allowed to re-enter her apartment,

she did so and began cleaning up. There was a thick

layer of dust on the floor. She collected some of it into a

large sealable plastic bag for possible later use in an art

piece. Ms. MacKinlay responded to the request in the 2006

paper by Dr. Jones by sending him a dust sample. In November

2006, Dr. Jones traveled to California to visit Ms.

MacKinlay at her new location, and in the company of several

witnesses collected a second sample of the WTC dust

directly from her large plastic bag where the dust was stored.

She has also sent samples directly to Dr. Jeffrey Farrer and

Kevin Ryan. Results from their studies form part of this report.

Another dust sample was collected by an individual from

a window sill of a building on Potter Street in NYC. He has

not given permission for his name to be disclosed, therefore

his material is not included in this study. That sample, however,

contained red/gray chips of the same general composition

as the samples described here.

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly! They were trying to prove ... nothing!

Well, since you can't click a link, read, and intelligently critique, maybe you can do 2 out of 3!

What's your problem with this?

Look...I read the report....screw you.

There are better controls on make believe TV shows like CSI....

Edited April 19, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[tango]

I will conclude from the attitudes and lack of any intelligent critique ... that no one has any valid critique of this study.

Clearly some people are unwilling to entertain thoughts of what the truth will mean.

That's understandable on an emotional level, but it is not a good reason to reject findings or fail to investigate properly.

It is only the truth that sets us free, not cover up.

Cover up only allows you to continue to pretend you are free.

[bush_cheney2004]

I will conclude from the attitudes and lack of any intelligent critique ... that no one has any valid critique of this study.

Conclude whatever you wish....we have presented you with plenty of valid criticism based on real world experience with such analyses and studies.

I will conclude that you have none.

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry, tango, but the fact that sample dust wasn't under control is very much a valid critique.

For that matter, they're not very specific about where it came from and how they solicited donations for the study.