Massimo Mazzucco - New movie about 9-11 coming out soon - 9/11 Scholars Forum2024-03-29T12:10:42Zhttp://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/massimo-mazzucco-new-movie?commentId=3488444%3AComment%3A26185&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThanks for reposting it Jeann…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-06-09:3488444:Comment:261852011-06-09T13:53:56.979ZDr. J. P. Huberthttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/DrJPHubert
<p>Thanks for reposting it Jeannon. I don't know how that happened.</p>
<p>It occurs to me that we now have two discussions ongoing that refer to nanothermite's possible role in the destruction of the Twin Towers. I'm not sure what the best way to handle that is. Ideally, all these related posts should be in one discussion thread so that any interested members can have easy access to them.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here is the verbatim section of the Jones/Harrit et. a. paper that refers to Ms…</p>
<p>Thanks for reposting it Jeannon. I don't know how that happened.</p>
<p>It occurs to me that we now have two discussions ongoing that refer to nanothermite's possible role in the destruction of the Twin Towers. I'm not sure what the best way to handle that is. Ideally, all these related posts should be in one discussion thread so that any interested members can have easy access to them.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here is the verbatim section of the Jones/Harrit et. a. paper that refers to Ms MacKinlay:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>"On the morning of</em> <em>9/11/2001</em><em>, Ms. Janette MacKinlay</em></p>
<p><em>was in her fourth-floor apartment at</em> <em>113 Cedar St.</em><em>/110</em> <em>Liberty</em></p>
<p><em>St. in New York City, across the street from the WTC</em></p>
<p><em>plaza. As the</em> <em>South</em> <em>Tower</em> <em>collapsed, the flowing cloud of</em></p>
<p><em>dust and debris caused windows of her apartment to break</em></p>
<p><em>inward and dust filled her apartment. She escaped by quickly</em></p>
<p><em>wrapping a wet towel around her head and exiting the building.</em></p>
<p><em>The building was closed for entry for about a week. As</em></p>
<p><em>soon as Ms. MacKinlay was allowed to re-enter her apartment,</em></p>
<p><em>she did so and began cleaning up. There was a thick</em></p>
<p><em>layer of dust on the floor. She collected some of it into a</em></p>
<p><em>large sealable plastic bag for possible later use in an art</em></p>
<p><em>piece. Ms. MacKinlay responded to the request in the 2006</em></p>
<p><em>paper by Dr. Jones by sending him a dust sample. In November</em></p>
<p><em>2006, Dr. Jones traveled to</em> <em>California</em> <em>to visit Ms.</em></p>
<p><em>MacKinlay at her new location, and in the company of several</em></p>
<p><em>witnesses collected a second sample of the WTC dust</em></p>
<p><em>directly from her large plastic bag where the dust was stored.</em></p>
<p><em>She has also sent samples directly to Dr. Jeffrey Farrer and</em></p>
<p><em>Kevin Ryan. Results from their studies form part of this report."</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Even though her sample was collected within a week of 9/11/01, it was not tested for 5 years. During that time it was moved from New York to California. The only other information supplied was that it was kept in a plastic bag. It is impossible to predict what it might have been exposed to in the interim.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In retrospective studies such as the Jones/Harrit et. al, which admittedly are of less explanatory power than prospective, controlled, blind ones of the type I have proposed, it is important to be as precise as possible with respect to handling samples lest inadvertent errors occur which can invalidate the conclusion(s).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The most appropriate sequence in a matter such as this where a poorly controlled (due to problems with standardizing sample collection and preservation) retrospective analysis was carried out and a preliminary conclusion was made is to obtain samples of dust from known and accepted sources such as the USGS (if it's samples were saved) or one of the other entities that carried out dust studies. These should first be subjected to the identical tests carried out by Jones/Harrit et. al. to see if the same results are obtained. If so, then a prospective, controlled, blinded study could be devised to see if the red/gray chip material can be generated utilizing known samples of nanothermite as a cutting agent on a properly constructed mock-up of the Twin Towers. This would be the best way to validate their theory because they would be able to attribute all of the results to nanothermite effects only.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I found the above article interesting. Who wrote it? One problem I note is that in the Schwartz comments about the dust findings that were alluded to, no mention is made of the high strontium concentrations that were found by the USGS. This suggests an attempt to hide the fact that a nuclear fission explosive reaction took place to a high degree of probability.</p>
<p> </p> Dr. Hubert, I am going to rep…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-06-09:3488444:Comment:261842011-06-09T12:18:39.904ZJeannon Kraljhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JeannonKralj
<p>Dr. Hubert, I am going to repost your last posting so that the background is white and text is readable... and then comment.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I wanted to add this material from the Jones/Harrit paper and a clarification of my previous post.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf">In the Materials and Methods section of the Jones/Harrit paper</a> published in <i>The Open Chemical Physics Journal</i>, 2009, 2, 7-31, it states…</p>
<p>Dr. Hubert, I am going to repost your last posting so that the background is white and text is readable... and then comment.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I wanted to add this material from the Jones/Harrit paper and a clarification of my previous post.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf">In the Materials and Methods section of the Jones/Harrit paper</a> published in <i>The Open Chemical Physics Journal</i>, 2009, 2, 7-31, it states that 4 private New York civilians totally of their own volition and utilizing their own methods, collected samples independently, one within minutes of the destruction of the second Tower, two were collected on the morning and afternoon of 9/12/2001 respectively by different individuals, and one a week later, all from locations in lower Manhattan. Presumably, no communication occurred between the 4 individuals or with any scientific experts with respect to the proper methods to be employed in collecting the samples or with regard to what procedures, methods, standards etc. should be utilized in order that the samples would be properly preserved. From a reading of the paper, it is unclear why the individuals collected the samples in the first place other than as a curiosity.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Some five years later in the fall of 2006, a general request was made for WTC dust samples that appeared in an on-line journal article by the Jones et. al research group. According to the authors, five individuals who presumably saw the request submitted samples for analysis. Four of the five agreed to have their names disclosed and their samples were subjected to detailed testing. All five samples were said to contain iron rich microspheres in the form of red/gray chips, which according to the authors, is diagnostic of nanothermite or superthermite. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> Thus, 4 of the 5 individuals who sent samples had their material reported on in the Jones/Harrit paper. The 5th was excluded because of not be willing to have his name disclosed, a decision which seems perplexing given that the authors state that the sample contained red/gray chips. It is unclear from reading the paper however, whether these 5 were the only samples that the Jones research group was supplied with. If other samples were in fact sent to the authors, then it is possible that they did not contain the red/gray chips. The authors should clarify whether they tested every sample sent to them and report on the results if more than 5 were received.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Moreover, in the introductory section of the paper, the authors state that they studied dust samples from the WTC prior to being given the 4 samples which they report on in detail in their paper. It is not clear where these dust samples came from. While they mention other WTC dust studies such as that of the USGS, the RJ Lee Company study, the McGee et. al study and the Lioy et. al study, they do not specifically state that they obtained their preparatory dust samples from any of them. Rather, they reported the following: </p>
<p> </p>
<p><i>"In June 2007, Dr. Steven Jones observed distinctive bi-layered chips with both a red and a gray layer, in a sample of the WTC dust</i> (no disclosure was made of where that sample came from)…<i>The authors also obtained and examined additional samples of WTC dust which had been collected by independent observers on, or very soon after, 9/11."</i></p>
<p> </p>
<p>It was the foregoing that apparently raised their interest. However, there is no documentation of the actual origin of these samples. The authors concluded their paper with the following:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><i>"Based on these observations, we conclude that the red</i> <i>layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC</i> <i>dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating</i> <i>nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or</i> <i><u>explosive material."</u></i></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thus in 2009 they were referring to nanothermite as an explosive.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Based on what is reported in the paper itself, all of the samples studied by Jones/Harrit et. al were handled in less than a pristine/controlled/standardized way. That does not mean that the conclusions made by the research group are wrong. It does mean that a separate study should be conducted by independent investigators in which for example, USGS dust samples could be tested utilizing the exact same protocol as that used by Jones/Harrit et. al. If nanothermite is discovered once again, the conclusion that it was involved in the destruction of the Twin Towers will be rendered more highly probable. "</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I know that Janette McKinlay is one of the people that gave dust samples to Dr. Jones' team. She lived in a 4th story apartment in a building next to the South Tower. The dust came in two broken windows. There is a video somewhere on the web of Dr. Jones' team going into her apartment to collect the samples. I believe this happened fairly shortly after 9-11, not years.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>________</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am going to repost in full with the link the article link I posted above but seems now to not be working. These "debunkers" of Dr. Jones use the term CT I guess for "conspiracy theorists" and I find that odd since Dr. Jones from the beginning presented himself as above and set apart from "conspiracy theorists." He was a Ph.D. physicist giving us pure science. The article also says there was no evidence of the clean up crew using thermite cutters.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims">http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims</a></p>
<p> </p>
<table width="100%" cellspacing="0" border="1">
<tbody><tr><td colspan="2" valign="bottom"></td>
<td colspan="2" valign="bottom"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="4" valign="top"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" valign="top"><p><b>stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims</b></p>
<p align="center"><b>Steven E. Jones' Thermite / Thermate claims</b></p>
<p> </p>
<p align="right"><a href="http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction">Contents</a><br/><a href="http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home">Main 9/11 Links Page</a></p>
<p>A commonly repeated 9/11 conspiracy theory is that an incendiary, thermite or thermate, rather than an explosive, was used to cut the huge steel columns, causing the WTC buildings to collapse. Steven E. Jones, a (former) physicist at Brigham Young University in Salt Lake City, and (former) co-chair of the 9/11 conspiracy-promoting “<a href="http://www.st911.org/">Scholars for 9/11 Truth</a>,” and now founder of "<a href="http://stj911.org/index.html">Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice</a>," is the chief proponent of this theory. <br/><br/>In his paper “<a href="http://worldtradecentertruth.com/articles/Why%20Indeed%20Did%20the%20WTC%20Buildings%20Completely%20Collapse%20Jones%20Thermite%20World%20Trade%20Center%20J24.pdf">Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse</a>?” (revised several times) Jones shows a startling propensity for abandoning the scientific method in favor of jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. As with his “evidence” that <a href="http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm">Jesus Christ visited the Americas</a> (a Mormon tenet), in his 9/11 work Jones promotes faith over intellectual rigor. <br/><br/>Jones claims to have found traces of thermate (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite">thermite</a> with a small amount of sulfur and a large amount of barium nitrate added) on a piece of steel from the WTC. This claim is unsubstantiated. First, Jones does not cite the chemical composition of actual spent thermate signatures, for comparison. Second, Jones has not provided a chain of custody for the steel he tested that would preclude its contamination by other sources. Third, and most importantly, there is nothing unexpected about finding sulfur and trace metals on WTC steel and dust samples. <br/><br/>Sulfur-based drywall was the third most-used construction material at the WTC. Thousands of gallons of fuel oil containing sulfur was spilled beneath the rubble piles, along with numerous other sulfur-containing inflammables. Thermate typically contains only 2% sulfur, so if the sulfur Jones detected was from ther-mate, we would expect to see the reaction byproducts of its main ingredients, iron oxide, aluminum, and barium nitrate, in proportionally greater amounts. The qualitative chemical analyses performed on sulfidated steel from WTC 7, 1, and 2 shows no signs of the presence of the incendiaries Jones says were used, nor did it reach anywhere near its melting point. <br/><br/>Chemist Frank Greening <a href="http://911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf">makes a strong argument</a> that sulfur in its gaseous state would best have been able to combine with the steel to produce the sulfidated effects, and that such sulfur probably would have been abundant in the witch's brew of burning chemicals in the piles at Ground Zero. For more information on this sulfur/steel issue, see <a href="http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf">http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf</a> and <a href="http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html">http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html</a><br/><br/>In this <a href="http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Media/Jones_ppt/LAJun24_Jones.pdf">rambling defense</a> of his theories, Jones cites an EPA report by Erik Swartz as evidence of the presence of thermite at the WTC: “Large amounts of 1,3 diphenylpropane strongly suggests the high-tech thermite arson used on the WTC buildings...” (bolding mine). <br/><br/>Swartz’s EPA report says nothing of the kind:<br/>One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said <b>it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.</b><a href="http://tinyurl.com/qvzd7">http://tinyurl.com/rp7xg<br/></a><br/>In the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/qvzd7">report abstract</a>, Swartz says, “In addition, the compound 1,3-diphenylpropane ...was observed, and to our knowledge, this species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling. <b>It has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site.</b>”<br/><br/>Only after Jones’ deceptive comments were publicly criticized did he include Swartz’s explanation in his presentations. <br/><br/>Likewise, in <a href="http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/DrJonesTalksatISUPhysicsDepartment.pdf">this presentation</a>, Jones claims that WTC-area dust samples showed elevated levels of elements that indicate the use of thermite. Note his statement in yellow at lower right:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/JonesBarium-full.jpg"><img src="http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/JonesBarium-full.jpg" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/JonesBarium.jpg"></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Jones cites a government report on post-9/11 dust samples in lower Manhattan. Here’s what the report actually says:<br/><br/>"The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts."<br/><br/>There's nothing there that would indicate anything out of the ordinary in the dust samples. <br/><br/>Another report about the settled dust at the WTC says,<br/>"The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, <b>manganese, aluminum, and barium</b>." <a href="http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/EHP110p703PDF.PDF">Source</a> (p. 709) <br/><br/>And the zinc? Galvanized zinc coating covered roughly 150 acres of corrugated steel floor decking in the towers. Red oxide zinc chromate primer paint was used on the structural steel, and many of the aircraft components were coated with zinc corrosion protection. Zinc also constitutes 10-40% of the content of brass, and a significant portion of bronze and nickel, and is used in many other construction and mechanical applications.<br/><br/>A common CT claim is that the angled column in the photo below is evidence of a cut made by thermite / thermate. Until recently this photo was prominently featured on the “Scholars for Truth” website and in Steven Jones’ papers and presentations. It still is featured on the page of another website promoting a debate challenge by the Scholars on teamliberty.net:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/0681-large.jpg"><img src="http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/0681-large.jpg" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/0681.jpg"></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Had these CTs taken a minute to enlarge the photo, as I have done below, they would have seen that the column shows obvious blowtorch marks, and slag sitting on top of the loose debris. Ironworkers used oxyacetylene torches to cut the WTC steel. Similar cuts are seen in many Ground Zero photos.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/WTCTorchAngleCuts1-full.jpg"><img src="http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/WTCTorchAngleCuts1-full.jpg" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/WTCTorchAngleCuts1.jpg"></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Below: My comparison of known use of thermite with Jones' <i>suspected</i> thermite cut. The top photo shows the characteristic residue left by thermite. The bottom photo shows what Steven Jones wants us to believe is a cut made by thermite. In fact it looks nothing like a thermite cut, and shows obvious signs of torch cutting. Is it any wonder why Jones didn't use a photo of known thermite use for comparison? I have seen thousands of photos from the WTC cleanup, including photos in private collections made by Ground Zero workers. None show any sign of thermite/thermate use.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/JonesNotThermite-full.jpg"><img src="http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/JonesNotThermite-full.jpg" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/JonesNotThermite.jpg"></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thermite/thermate cuts vertically, guided by gravity. For example, the military uses thermite to disable materiel to prevent it being used by the enemy. A thermite grenade placed on the horizontal hood of a truck will melt straight down through the engine block. If a necessarily huge amount of thermite was used to significantly weaken or cut through the thick WTC steel, it would have left behind unmistakable signs of its work.<br/><br/>To attack a thick vertical steel column with thermite, a large, complex, and extremely durable (capable of withstanding temperatures of 4000 °F) apparatus would have to be attached to each column to hold the thermite against the steel throughout the cutting process. And equally durable ignition devices (timers / wiring / radio receivers: take your pick) would need to survive the aircraft impacts/debris impacts and raging fires, and work perfectly when needed.<br/><br/>The huge thermite devices would have to be attached to many columns, for redundancy, because the “conspirators” would not know exactly where the planes or debris would hit. Obviously, it would be highly suspicious if the building collapses initiated in an undamaged area.<br/><br/>All this work would have to be done invisibly, with absolutely no chance of detection.<br/><br/>No thermite cutting devices were found in the three <i>billion</i> pounds of debris that was meticulously sorted by FBI investigators and NYPD detectives at Fresh Kills Landfill.<br/><br/>No evidence of thermite or thermate use at the WTC has ever been found. Zero. Steven Jones ignores the many possible sources of the trace chemicals he found on steel and in reports of dust analysis. And as a reminder, Jones does not have a chain of custody for the steel he examined that would rule out other sources of contamination.<br/><br/>NIST’s informative <a href="http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm">FAQ</a> covers the thermite question (excerpt): <br/><br/>"Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, <b>many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building</b>. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.<br/><br/>Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present [approx. 19% by weight] in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions." (bolding mine)<br/><br/>I’ve only delved this far into this subject to show how quickly the CT claims unravel when examined in the light of the facts, and how far even a prominent, trained scientist will go to distort the truth.<br/><br/>For now, perhaps we should leave the final word on this issue to Brent Blanchard of Protec, from his paper <a href="http://tinyurl.com/z6zy%20">A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint</a>:<br/><br/>"Dr. Jones acknowledges that his investigation is still in the research phase and that questions regarding the viability of his theory remain unanswered. For example, it is unknown how thermite’s destructive process could have been applied and initiated simultaneously on so many beams – in several buildings – undetected and/or under such extreme conditions. It is also unusual that no demolition personnel at any level noticed telltale signs of thermite’s degenerative “fingerprint” on any beams during the eight months of debris removal."</p>
<p align="center"><b><a href="http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/larrysilverstein%3Ainsuranceprofitmotive%3F">Next: Larry Silverstein: Insurance Profit Motive?</a></b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td width="3"></td>
<td width="349"></td>
<td width="394"></td>
<td width="3"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
I wanted to add this materi…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-06-09:3488444:Comment:261832011-06-09T11:33:55.876ZDr. J. P. Huberthttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/DrJPHubert
<br></br>
<p>I <span style="color: black;">wanted to add this material from the Jones/Harrit paper and a clarification of my previous post.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;"><a href="http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf" rel="nofollow">In the Materials and Methods section of the Jones/Harrit paper</a> published in <em>The Open Chemical Physics Journal</em>, 2009, 2, 7-31, it states that 4 private New York civilians totally of their own volition and utilizing…</span></p>
<br/>
<p>I <span style="color: black;">wanted to add this material from the Jones/Harrit paper and a clarification of my previous post.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf">In the Materials and Methods section of the Jones/Harrit paper</a> published in <em>The Open Chemical Physics Journal</em>, 2009, 2, 7-31, it states that 4 private New York civilians totally of their own volition and utilizing their own methods, collected samples independently, one within minutes of the destruction of the second Tower, two were collected on the morning and afternoon of 9/12/2001 respectively by different individuals, and one a week later, all from locations in lower Manhattan. Presumably, no communication occurred between the 4 individuals or with any scientific experts with respect to the proper methods to be employed in collecting the samples or with regard to what procedures, methods, standards etc. should be utilized in order that the samples would be properly preserved. From a reading of the paper, it is unclear why the individuals collected the samples in the first place other than as a curiosity.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">Some five years later in the fall of 2006, a general request was made for WTC dust samples that appeared in an on-line journal article by the Jones et. al research group. According to the authors, five individuals who presumably saw the request submitted samples for analysis. Four of the five agreed to have their names disclosed and their samples were subjected to detailed testing. All five samples were said to contain iron rich microspheres in the form of red/gray chips, which according to the authors, is diagnostic of nanothermite or superthermite. </span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;"> </span><em><span style="font-style: normal; color: black;">Thus, 4 of the 5 individuals who sent samples had their material reported on in the Jones/Harrit paper. The 5th was excluded because of not be willing to have his name disclosed, a decision which seems perplexing given that the authors state that the sample contained red/gray chips. It is unclear from reading the paper however, whether these 5 were the only samples that the Jones research group was supplied with. If other samples were in fact sent to the authors, then it is possible that they did not contain the red/gray chips. The authors should clarify whether they tested every sample sent to them and report on the results if more than 5 were received.</span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-style: normal; color: black;"> </span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-style: normal; color: black;">Moreover, in the introductory section of the paper, the authors state that they studied dust samples from the WTC prior to being given the 4 samples which they report on in detail in their paper. It is not clear where these dust samples came from. While they mention other WTC dust studies such as that of the USGS, the RJ Lee Company study, the McGee et. al study and the Lioy et. al study, they do not specifically state that they obtained their preparatory dust samples from any of them.</span></em> <span style="color: black;">Rather, they reported the following: </span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;"><em>"In June 2007, Dr. Steven Jones observed distinctive bi-layered chips with both a red and a gray layer, in a sample of the WTC dust</em> (no disclosure was made of where that sample came from)…</span><span style="color: black;"><em>The authors also obtained and examined additional samples of WTC dust which had been collected by independent observers on, or very soon after, 9/11."</em></span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">It was the foregoing that apparently raised their interest. However, there is no documentation of the actual origin of these samples. The authors concluded their paper with the following:</span></p>
<br/>
<p><em><span style="color: black;">"Based on these observations, we conclude that the red</span></em> <em><span style="color: black;">layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC</span></em> <em><span style="color: black;">dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating</span></em> <em><span style="color: black;">nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or</span></em> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><span style="color: black;">explosive material."</span></em></span></p>
<br/>
<p><span style="color: black;">Thus in 2009 they were referring to nanothermite as an explosive.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">Based on what is reported in the paper itself, all of the samples studied by Jones/Harrit et. al were handled in less than a pristine/controlled/standardized way. That does not mean that the conclusions made by the research group are wrong. It does mean that a separate study should be conducted by independent investigators in which for example, USGS dust samples could be tested utilizing the exact same protocol as that used by Jones/Harrit et. al. If nanothermite is discovered once again, the conclusion that it was involved in the destruction of the Twin Towers will be rendered more highly probable.</span></p> "Chuck is the chemist and he…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-06-08:3488444:Comment:261792011-06-08T18:00:48.158ZJeannon Kraljhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JeannonKralj
<p>"Chuck is the chemist and he has done some hypothetical chemical reactions involving thermate that would account for the "lathering" cloud before the demolitions, and a white cloud of aluminum oxide , plus the strange effects on cars due to thermate in the cloud that reacts by accident with the cars."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I certainly did "like" Chuck's explanations for the effects on cars and paint etc., but still they seemed to be "missing something" to me that would more surely or fully explain…</p>
<p>"Chuck is the chemist and he has done some hypothetical chemical reactions involving thermate that would account for the "lathering" cloud before the demolitions, and a white cloud of aluminum oxide , plus the strange effects on cars due to thermate in the cloud that reacts by accident with the cars."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I certainly did "like" Chuck's explanations for the effects on cars and paint etc., but still they seemed to be "missing something" to me that would more surely or fully explain that "evidence", just as Dr. Wood's explanation is found wanting too.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Will have to read up more on the "lathering" but as I recall some discount "lathering" altogether. Lathering shown in photos seem to occur only on one side of a building. That seems strange to me being only on one side of the building.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I came across this interesing article about the dust and the cutting refuting Dr. Jones.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims">http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Worth a read.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p> "I think Chuck and Thoth leav…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-06-08:3488444:Comment:262772011-06-08T17:45:15.311ZThoth IIhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/ThothII
<p>"I think Chuck and Thoth leave all of the explosion part of the sequence of events to the last part when the nukes explode but they both hold on to the cutting step at the beginning.<br></br>"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>yes, exactly. But Chuck is the chemist and he has done some hypothetical chemical reactions involving thermate that would account for the "lathering" cloud before the demolitions, and a white cloud of aluminum oxide , plus the strange effects on cars due to thermate in the cloud that…</p>
<p>"I think Chuck and Thoth leave all of the explosion part of the sequence of events to the last part when the nukes explode but they both hold on to the cutting step at the beginning.<br/>"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>yes, exactly. But Chuck is the chemist and he has done some hypothetical chemical reactions involving thermate that would account for the "lathering" cloud before the demolitions, and a white cloud of aluminum oxide , plus the strange effects on cars due to thermate in the cloud that reacts by accident with the cars. Chuck has explained in detail, but again, for us non-chemists, that is the problem, it is a little hard to follow him. Still, I totally trust his expertise and I think he is totally on track.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The only events I know in history are the nuclear bombs that were buried in New Mexico desert and blown up about hundred feet below the surface, totally vaporized sand and kicked up a big fallout cloud. </p> Thank you, Dr. Hubert, for he…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-06-08:3488444:Comment:262762011-06-08T17:40:53.230ZJeannon Kraljhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JeannonKralj
<p>Thank you, Dr. Hubert, for helping us sort all of this out.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I cannot say for sure but I think Dr. Steven Jones et al. reject, if not necessarily openly, any suggestion of a nuke being used. They allow for the possibility of other "explosives" being used that they did not report on. There became the "need" to have an "explosive". I think that may be why Dr. Jones started "evolving" what "thermite" really was or could be. Hence nano-thermite, super nano-thermate, thermite…</p>
<p>Thank you, Dr. Hubert, for helping us sort all of this out.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I cannot say for sure but I think Dr. Steven Jones et al. reject, if not necessarily openly, any suggestion of a nuke being used. They allow for the possibility of other "explosives" being used that they did not report on. There became the "need" to have an "explosive". I think that may be why Dr. Jones started "evolving" what "thermite" really was or could be. Hence nano-thermite, super nano-thermate, thermite anaologs, sol-gel thermate etc. But if at least some of the "explosives" are bound to the "thermite charges", as Dr. Jones has proposed, then what Chuck and Thoth and I have all expressed becomes the problem, that is, the likelihood that the "package" of thermite-with-explosive would interfere with the cutting action of the thermite. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think Chuck and Thoth leave all of the explosion part of the sequence of events to the last part when the nukes explode but they both hold on to the cutting step at the beginning. So Dr. Jones' thermite (or whatever he currently calls it) is increasingly being shown to be a cutting agent only. Dr. jones appears to "require" the cutting action step too, as does Chuck, but does not tell us where this cutting action step occurs in any stated possible sequence of events. So that points us now to the need to elaborate a bit on that cutting action step being necessary at all. Dr. Hubert now logically points us to discussing nukes being able to do the whole job without thermite and cutting action.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Dr. Hubert said...</p>
<p>"My sense is that nuclear explosions of the proper kind and number could not only account for the USGS dust evidence which proves to a very high degree of probability that a large amount of nuclear fission of Uranium 235 occured but could also account for the virtual complete pulverization of all the Twin Towers concrete into dust"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A couple of questions about this statement...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Is it the fission of Uranium 235 that accounts for the "55 times the normal" measurement of tritium in the air at Ground Zero that Dr. Ed Ward told us about? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Is there any record of an event in history where a nuclear fission bomb(s) produced the degree of puliverization (and "vaporization") ( ? micron sized dust particles) of concrete and all of the contents of the Towers.?</p>
<p> </p>
<p> I am remembering what Dr. Morgan Reynolds wrote about "proof concept" that is a criterion to judge the hypothesis of a research study.) I realize we are not talking about studies here but I just think if we had any past events to draw on, it would certainly make for a stronger case.</p>
<p> </p> I found the interchange on th…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-06-08:3488444:Comment:261772011-06-08T16:44:52.481ZDr. J. P. Huberthttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/DrJPHubert
<p>I found the interchange on this new topic to be very interesting. Jeannon, you have expressed your position very well. A number of questions come to mind for me after reviewing the above posts.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>First, I would like to know (from someone who purports that both nano-thermite and nuclear explosions were used to destroy the Twin Towers) how we can differentiate that hypothetical scenario from the one in which only conventional (non-thermite/nanothermite) cutter agents were used in…</p>
<p>I found the interchange on this new topic to be very interesting. Jeannon, you have expressed your position very well. A number of questions come to mind for me after reviewing the above posts.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>First, I would like to know (from someone who purports that both nano-thermite and nuclear explosions were used to destroy the Twin Towers) how we can differentiate that hypothetical scenario from the one in which only conventional (non-thermite/nanothermite) cutter agents were used in combination with nuclear explosions or from a third option in which only nuclear explosions were employed? Assume for the moment that we are unable to trust the analysis of WTC dust carried out by Jones/Herrit et. al in which allegedly an identification of nano-thermite was made. Assume this either because we cannot document that a proper chain of custody was insured or because the sample was obtained allegedly from only one location in the WTC area. How then do we prove that nano-thermite was utilized at all in the process of destroying the 2 buildings?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>My sense is that nuclear explosions of the proper kind and number could not only account for the USGS dust evidence which proves to a very high degree of probability that a large amount of nuclear fission of Uranium 235 occured but could also account for the virtual complete pulverization of all the Twin Towers concrete into dust along with the vaporization of virtually the entire contents of each building including file cabinets, electrical wiring, computers, other business machines, plumbing fixtures, furniture and human beings. It also explains the increased incidence of cancer being documented in first responders especially in those who are much too young statistically to be developing those with which they are afflicted. The only question that then remains is whether the several hundred tons of steel beams could have been demolished as they were, some of which were forcefully ejected up and out away from the buildings, some of which fell into the sub-surface basement levels of each footprint and some of which appears possibly to have been vaporized--without invoking the use of nanothermite as a cutter agent.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For those who think that nuclear explosions could not have produced all of the above findings either in combination with conventional non-nanothermite cutter agents or in isolation, it would be helpful if they could explain why. One possible explanation is that the appearance of some of the steel beams suggests a rapidly occuring cutting action which presumably cannot be explained without postulating the use of nanothermite. On the other hand, some steel beams do appear to be bent around the wrong axis as argued by Dr. Judy Wood in her book, an effect which if real needs to be investigated to see if it can be produced by nuclear explosions or any other conventional means short of DFEW.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In another thread I suggested that properly constructed mock-ups of the Twin Towers should be constructed and then empirically subjected to demolition utilizing various agents including nanothermite. It would very readily be determined what could be acoomplished without the use of nuclear explosions. When all else fails, conduct an experiment. Has this been attempted?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I tend at this point to agree with Jeannon that the nanothermite issue may turn out to be a "red-herring." Occam's razor holds that we must not multiply entities unnecessarily. If the destruction of the Twin Towers is explainable without nanothermite being involved, its presence should not be assumed unless there is unimpeachable evidence that it was used.</p>
<p> </p> Jeannon,
after you read Lyl…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-06-07:3488444:Comment:259792011-06-07T20:22:03.124ZThoth IIhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/ThothII
<p>Jeannon,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>after you read Lyle Slaughter at mormonzeitgeist.com I think you might reconsider. He is about the only one who knows what he knows but I totally trust him. I've studied websites 10 years and have a pretty good idea who the real ones vs. phony ones/ops are at least many times. I agree that most MSM like Savage are just playing in the left-right kiddy pool to totally contain and divert the discussion. At first 50 years ago when they took out JFK, I thought they'd…</p>
<p>Jeannon,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>after you read Lyle Slaughter at mormonzeitgeist.com I think you might reconsider. He is about the only one who knows what he knows but I totally trust him. I've studied websites 10 years and have a pretty good idea who the real ones vs. phony ones/ops are at least many times. I agree that most MSM like Savage are just playing in the left-right kiddy pool to totally contain and divert the discussion. At first 50 years ago when they took out JFK, I thought they'd never get away with it. But they hired the best minds and they realized it is pretty easy to buy people, look at Gary Mack for a classic study and so they were able to coop the entire country with their misdirections and lies to where now typical people really do not know fantasy from reality. As I said, this is one of the most sinister parts of human history and these monsters are really starting to show their hand. </p> As a Navy Seal Demolition Exp…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-06-07:3488444:Comment:259772011-06-07T17:51:18.717ZShallel Octaviahttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/Shallel
<p>As a Navy Seal Demolition Expert, I think Jesse can make up his own mind about what explosives can or cannot do.</p>
<p>He can see the truth in what Judy is saying. Take a good look at this picture of reinforced concrete rubble from Fukushima and compare it to the microscopic pulverization at GZ:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1490582938?profile=original" target="_self"><img class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1490582938?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="721"></img></a> <br></br> <br></br> <cite>Thoth II said:…</cite></p>
<p>As a Navy Seal Demolition Expert, I think Jesse can make up his own mind about what explosives can or cannot do.</p>
<p>He can see the truth in what Judy is saying. Take a good look at this picture of reinforced concrete rubble from Fukushima and compare it to the microscopic pulverization at GZ:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1490582938?profile=original"><img class="align-full" width="721" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1490582938?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a><br/> <br/>
<cite>Thoth II said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/massimo-mazzucco-new-movie?commentId=3488444%3AComment%3A25501&xg_source=activity#3488444Comment25501"><div><p>My own opinion is that yes, Steve Jones was planted by the intel community to wreck future research into 911. I am very very suspicious of his whole involvement in DOE projects and work at BYU and if Lyle Slaughter is correct we have to watch very carefully for nazi and mormon involvement in intel ops out of BYU. I do not trust Steve Jones as far as I can throw my car.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, I do believe that Chuck's independent research is correct and I am 100% positive that he is on the right track with his thermate/nuke hypothesis, and I believe all future evidence will confirm his H in spades again and again, just watch in the future, as evidence comes to light, it'll just keep confirming his hypothesis. He has done the very best research in the twin towers.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As for Judy Wood, she is a total waste of time as far as her DEW H, although her book does have great pictures and evidence to be explained. She got some type of emotional connection to DEW through prior pet research she did early in her career ( I heard her talk about that maybe 5 years ago somewhere) and now just can't drop her hypothesis.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>People in JFK do this all the time, for example, the Z film is a massive fraud, yet Robert Groden will not admit this and he must save his ego from his unveiling the extant film on Geraldo show and his ego will not permit him to see the light, as Judy will forever refuse to see the light. She is a lost cause now, and a misinfo. agent and drawing in people like Jesse is not good.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The perps love this kind of stuff. For instance, why did they fabricate the Z film? Easy.. because now people in great majority believe a totally fictious series of events in dealey plaza and will never know the exact truth. Read Jim Fetzer's trilogy on JFK to get the total or approximate truth. </p>
</div>
</blockquote> "I am very very suspicious of…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-06-07:3488444:Comment:255032011-06-07T13:13:59.340ZJeannon Kraljhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JeannonKralj
<p>"I am very very suspicious of his whole involvement in DOE projects and work at BYU and if Lyle Slaughter is correct we have to watch very carefully for nazi and mormon involvement in intel ops out of BYU."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Interesting, will look up Slaughter and read up.</p>
<p>Paul Drockton of MoneyTeachers.com, I think, often linked from Rense.com, is a practicing Morman and he writes frequently and I think honestly, from his Mormon perspective that is, about the "Satnanic psychopaths"…</p>
<p>"I am very very suspicious of his whole involvement in DOE projects and work at BYU and if Lyle Slaughter is correct we have to watch very carefully for nazi and mormon involvement in intel ops out of BYU."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Interesting, will look up Slaughter and read up.</p>
<p>Paul Drockton of MoneyTeachers.com, I think, often linked from Rense.com, is a practicing Morman and he writes frequently and I think honestly, from his Mormon perspective that is, about the "Satnanic psychopaths" who are pretty much in control of the top hierarchy of the Mormon Church. He never says a word negative about "NAZIs", Glen Beck (also a Mormon), Zionists etc. would note that "psychopaths" is the favorite way both the right and the left want to describe those secret elites they judge are running the show. To me, it is all the dialectic and all "sides" are run by the same entity. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lately there is a big move by Michael "Savage" Weiner (Jewish "right wing" radio personality), radio show host, to prove Obama is a "psychopath." Dr. Steve Pieczenik (Jewish Polish psychiatrist and government psychological warfare expert) was on A Jones show recently elaborating on this. This personality disorder/ psychopath line of thinking may be absolutely correct but somehow it seems to be avoidance of better identifying the puppet masters.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Mormons seem to be patriotic Americans and they are definitely "right wing" or "conservative" and seem to revere the Constitution, but from there they somehow have gone awry. They have turned in to the "NAZI" kind of right wing which really has zero to do with true American patriotism, but probably is more akin to "nationalism" as exhibited in 1930s Germany.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>_________</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"However, I do believe that Chuck's independent research is correct and I am 100% positive that he is on the right track with his thermate/nuke hypothesis, and <strong>I believe all future evidence will confirm his H in spades</strong> again and again, just watch in the future, as evidence comes to light, it'll just keep confirming his hypothesis. He has done the very best research in the twin towers."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am looking forward to seeing that "future evidence" brought forward and discussed on this forum.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>______________</p>
<p>"She got some type of emotional connection to DEW through prior pet research she did early in her career"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Interesting. I have never heard that. I do think Dr. Wood is "on to something" by wanting to explore directed energy and its ramifications. I do think this kind of energy is being used right now in weaponry and since it is all top secret, we just have to gradually try to pick up on what we can to come to understandings about its characteristics and capabilities. It does seem to offer the hope of free inexhaustible energy for all and the dark forces that want to rule the world definitely do not want free energy for all.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>______________</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"for example, the Z film is a massive fraud, yet Robert Groden will not admit this and he must save his ego from his unveiling the extant film on Geraldo show and his ego will not permit him to see the light,"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This Robert Groden person has put himself and the "government" in the exact place that Dr. Fetzer and all JFK assassination researchers should be very happy about. Now, Groden HAS TO. MUST, stand by the Z film, and that will be the demise of the Z film's value in the deception as Dr. Fetzer's et al. work becomes more and more communicated to the public.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This reminds me of what Jerome Corsi and Joseph Farrah at WND did regarding this latest April 2011 presenting of Obama's long form birth certificate by Obama on live television to the world. Corsi named his book "where is the birth certificate" and Trump (operating completely separately from Corsi and for his own agenda, whatever that is) also pressed to be shown the actual true long form birth certificate. They forced Obama's hand by holding off on pointing out in print the obvious evidences of forgery on that long form b c in hopes Obama would declare something to be his long form birth certificate, and Obama fell right in to that trap. Now all the technical evaluations of that fake document are being clearly documented by document experts and a criminal complaint for document forgery has been formally filed with the FBI. Ping!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now we get to see the crooked FBI, the crooked U S congress, and the crooked judges make their next play.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But Obama is wedded to the forged document just as Groden is wedded to the fake Z film and that is a good thing!.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>___________</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>