Would a new 9/11 investigation really accomplish anything?

reply to post by bsbray11


It does not seem to be disputed that samples of dust were taken in Manhattan in September 2001. It was stated that " the purposes for collecting the samples were (a) to determine the chemical and physical characteristics of the material that was present in the dust and smoke that settled from the initial plume and (b) to determine the absence or presence of contaminants that could affect acute or long term human health by inhalation or ingestion."

You seem to be trying to imply that an examination of this sort could pass residue of explosives by, but that is simply untenable. Most explosives are toxic to humans, female munitions workers in Britain in WW 1 were called "canaries" because their exposure to explosives turned them yellow. So the idea that tests to determine whether there were contaminants in the dust which could be injurious to human health would simply ignore explosive residues is just not on.

This evidence, together with much else, is pretty conclusive that there were no explosives at the WTC.

Originally posted by Alfie1
You seem to be trying to imply that an examination of this sort could pass residue of explosives by, but that is simply untenable. Most explosives are toxic to humans, female munitions workers in Britain in WW 1 were called "canaries" because their exposure to explosives turned them yellow. So the idea that tests to determine whether there were contaminants in the dust which could be injurious to human health would simply ignore explosive residues is just not on.

You have offered nothing to demonstrate that they would have been able to pick up any significant amount of residue from any kind of explosive by taking air samples. Taking air samples and looking for explosives residues is inevitably going to mean that any such residue would be extremely diluted in the air and potentially next to non-existent, which is why this is NOT a standard procedure by any means for checking for these residues. It is NOT an accepted form of measure. We aren't talking about looking at any steel, we are talking about taking a sample of nearby air which circulates and all the rest.

Some explosive residues are toxic and significant exposure can turn people yellow. That's great. But you still don't look for explosive residues by taking air samples, rather than testing building materials or looking through the rubble itself.


Just show me 1 example where this has been a forensically accepted method of checking for these residues. Go ahead!

This evidence, together with much else, is pretty conclusive that there were no explosives at the WTC.

There is no such thing as "pretty conclusive."

Something is either conclusive, or it is not. And you are taking it upon yourself to try and prove a negative. So far you have failed, as you have proved nothing.

Scores of witnesses reported many different explosions at different times during the day and different places in and around all 3 skyscrapers. And you can prove what was causing none of them. You have yet to rule out explosive devices, bombs, etc.

Originally posted by bsbray11

You have offered nothing to demonstrate that they would have been able to pick up any significant amount of residue from any kind of explosive by taking air samples.

Dogs are quite efficent at it.


So do the new airport screeners.

reply to post by bsbray11


Where do you get the idea that just air samples were taken. Dust samples were also analysed, and within days of the event, not years after as with Steven Jones :-

eohsi.rutgers.edu...

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Dogs are quite efficent at it.

Not really, no, they aren't. For one thing they aren't trained for all varieties of explosives/bombs. For another all they can do is bark or scratch, which wouldn't tell the handler a whole hell of a lot when you're using it for search and rescue at Ground Zero. Ie not looking for explosives residues, which, AGAIN, NO ONE DID.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Where do you get the idea that just air samples were taken.

So this is your rebuttal to the fact that the air would have been extremely diluted of any explosive residues left over from inside the buildings?

Either show me a single case where this has been an accepted method of looking for explosives residues, or admit it is NOT an accepted method for this. I know how this goes. First you down-play what I said in my last post and ignore it, next you'll bring up the air samples again later like I never showed anything wrong with them in the first place. Stick to one thing at a time and before you move on to something else admit that you had no case.

Dust samples were also analysed, and within days of the event, not years after as with Steven Jones

These guys were also NOT looking for explosives at all, and this also is not an accepted method of testing for explosive residues at a crime scene in the first place.

Jones may have done the same testing, for a different reason, and so came to a different conclusion, but I am NOT saying this is adequate investigation and we can all go home now.


There has been NO proper investigation for explosives. NIST did not look at all and admitted it, NO ONE looked, except Steven Jones, and you have the nerve to tell me that you've ruled it out already based on nothing but arrogance, over-confidence in the fact that you somehow already know what was causing so many explosions even though actually you can tell me what was causing none of them.

reply to post by bsbray11


I haven't said anything about air samples specifically, there was testing of dust samples also.

The purpose of the testing was to see if there were any contaminants in the dust which posed a threat to human health. As virtually all explosives are toxic and pose a threat to human health then they would have been exposed in the analysis.

I appreciate that this is inconvenient for your cd theories.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11

You have offered nothing to demonstrate that they would have been able to pick up any significant amount of residue from any kind of explosive by taking air samples.

Dogs are quite efficent at it.


So do the new airport screeners.

Brian-

Your previous post goes totally OT regarding whether or not these 2 can pick up any significant amount of explosive residue.

Since both of these methods work quite well, you have been proven wrong, and your credibility shot.

Deal with it.

Originally posted by Alfie1
I haven't said anything about air samples specifically, there was testing of dust samples also.

Maybe you missed your own post on the top of this page where you suggest that testing air samples is a viable way to look for explosive residues?

The purpose of the testing was to see if there were any contaminants in the dust which posed a threat to human health. As virtually all explosives are toxic and pose a threat to human health then they would have been exposed in the analysis.

Once again, this is not addressing the fact that (1) the residue would have been extremely diluted in an air sample, and (b) it is NOT an accepted method of testing for explosives, for this same reason.

So no, the air testing is not evidence that there were no residues. Sorry. No one tested specifically for explosives. The air test is not a test for explosive residues. It is a test for toxins in the air, and NOWHERE is it said you can detect sufficient explosive residues of any given chemical signature in the air.

You keep failing to address this, I will just keep repeating it over and over. Easy.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Your previous post goes totally OT regarding whether or not these 2 can pick up any significant amount of explosive residue.

Nope, sorry.

Since both of these methods work quite well

Source please.

I guess you didn't read it, but I am asking for ONE EXAMPLE of air samples EVER being used to test for explosive residues at a building collapse site.

There are no such examples, because this is not how you test for explosives.

Deal with it.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
What does "... to determine the chemical and physical characteristics of the material..." mean to you?

Sorry, jthomas. Your endless rhetorical questions will never add up to anything. If you really had anything to say, you would say it explicitly.

It's a direct question to you. If the purpose of the testing is as I quoted, how does that exclude detecting explosives?

No one tested the steel or anything else for explosives residues, except Steven Jones.

I am asking you to provide us with specific material demonstrating that "testing steel" is the only methodology for detecting explosives. You haven't yet done so.

your whole premise is that the test done "... to determine the chemical and physical characteristics of the material..." is incapable of detecting the chemical signatures of explosives

You are talking about testing air to see if there were explosives residues,...

That is incorrect. Please review the above study carefully. It states:

"Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center...

...Three bulk samples of the total settled dust and smoke were collected at weather-protected locations east of the WTC on 16 and 17 September 2001; these samples are representative of the generated material that settled immediately after the explosion and fire and the concurrent collapse of the two structures."

There is no question that theses samples were from the settled dust. They were NOT air samples.

...when the researchers weren't looking out for those residues in the first place. To say that this is a proper investigation for explosives residues is laughable.

Again, they were testing the dust "...to determine the chemical and physical characteristics of the material..." You have yet to present anything to invalidate that methodology.

To repeat, you have failed to demonstrate that looking for contaminants in air is an accepted method of checking the crime scene of three completely destroyed buildings for explosives residues.

Your mistake is that they were not air samples. You hold the entire burden of supporting your claim that ONLY Steven Jone's methodology for testing for explosives is correct. You need to demonstrate that factually and demonstrate why the objective of the above study to which I linked would fail to detect explosives residue.

Your claims are unsupported. I, and others, would have no reason to accept them until and unless you can factually demonstrate your claims are correct. That's all I am asking.

reply to post by jthomas


I am simply going to refer readers to the endless posts that precede this.


You are just repeating yourself after you have already been debunked. The strategy is, if you lie often enough, someone will believe it.


No one tested for explosives, except Steven Jones. People took air samples, but this is not a method for testing for explosives. That's all. Now please, continue on with the endless circle of rhetoric and repetition.

reply to post by bsbray11


Your studious avoidance of the fact that dust samples were analysed, as pointed out repeatedly to you above, speaks volumes.

Readers will make up their own minds.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

I am simply going to refer readers to the endless posts that precede this.

You are just repeating yourself after you have already been debunked. The strategy is, if you lie often enough, someone will believe it.

A question is a question, not a lie.

No one tested for explosives, except Steven Jones.

The record shows that remains your unsupported claim.

Originally posted by jthomas
The record shows that remains your unsupported claim.

NIST reports show that NIST did not test for explosives.

Also NIST did not recover any steel from buidling 7 for testing.

wtc.nist.gov...
In addition, the steel used in the construction of WTC 7 is described
based solely on data from the literature, because no steel from the building was recovered.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by jthomas
The record shows that remains your unsupported claim.

NIST reports show that NIST did not test for explosives.

Please refer to the study to which I linked. You may answer the questions that bsbray11 hasn't.

Originally posted by jthomas
Please refer to the study to which I linked. You may answer the questions that bsbray11 hasn't.

What study?

NIST stated they did not test for explosives and they never recovered steel from building 7 for study or testing.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Your studious avoidance of the fact that dust samples were analysed, as pointed out repeatedly to you above, speaks volumes.

For a study of contaminants in the air.

NOT for explosive residues.

reply to post by jthomas


Keep peddling your air quality study as if it was an investigation for explosives.

You know the EPA lied about the air quality too, as if it wasn't bad enough that you can't detect explosives this way in the first place.

Originally posted by jthomas
Please refer to the study to which I linked. You may answer the questions that bsbray11 hasn't.

Speaking of questions that remain unanswered, you never did show that this kind of study is an accepted procedure to testing for explosive residues.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Alfie1
Your studious avoidance of the fact that dust samples were analysed, as pointed out repeatedly to you above, speaks volumes.

For a study of contaminants in the air.

NOT for explosive residues.

You are continuing to try and turn a blind eye to the fact that "dust" was analysed. Scroll through the slides on this link to 15 and you will see an example:-

eohsi.rutgers.edu...

This is just the same sort of dust that Steven Jones purported to analyse but these samples were collected within days of the attack.

The dust was analysed to see if it contained any contaminants injurious to human health. Nearly all explosives are toxic to humans so why wasn't a single trace detected ? Because there were no explosive residues present.

reply to post by Alfie1


I am aware of what the air quality study tested.

I am still waiting for some source describing how this is an accepted means for testing for explosives residues.

I don't think even Steven Jones has provided enough testing in this area of questioning.