Would a new 9/11 investigation really accomplish anything?

Originally posted by bsbray11
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.

Well, it must be obvious to all now that you refuse to see that dust samples from various locations in Manhattan were collected within days of the attack and analysed. I thought truthers were supposed to be pursuing truth, not shutting their minds to it.

For the umpteenth time, those samples were analysed with a view to identifying harmful contaminants, like explosive residues, and didn't find them.

reply to post by Alfie1


I'm trying to make this simple for you.

Show me a single source that says this is a scientifically rigorous or accepted way to test for explosive residues.

Because air contamination studies are NOT the way you test for explosives.

Originally posted by bsbray11


Because air contamination studies are NOT the way you test for explosives.

And again, you're ignoring airport screeners.

I wonder why that is...

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Alfie1

 

I'm trying to make this simple for you.

Show me a single source that says this is a scientifically rigorous or accepted way to test for explosive residues.

Because air contamination studies are NOT the way you test for explosives.

I wasn't referring you to air contamination studies, as you know, but to dust contamination studies.

Steven Jones analysed dust but with a much poorer provenance. Are you saying his studies were a waste of time ?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
And again, you're ignoring airport screeners.

I wonder why that is...

Why don't you give us the technical specifics on airport screeners as to what ppm they are capable of detecting and what they would fail to detect.

Airport screeners are not infallible, for example if a perpetrator only hides an amount of explosives or narcotics in their own bodies (and there are several ways people do this) they can successfully pass these detections. If a certain quantity of conventional explosives is carried through one of these detectors, the explosives deteriorating causes their make-up chemicals to break away and go free-floating in the surrounding air. If the materials are inside the body, the process of them getting out of it and back into the air suddenly presents a challenge to these machines.

And that's just a few inches of flesh covering. Imagine 10's of feet of debris surrounding and covering the parts of the buildings that were first "compromised." Then on top of that, you aren't just a foot or two away, you're much farther. And you can only test dust that is that far away. That is nowhere near the same. And not an accepted way to test for explosives at a crime scene like this.

Originally posted by bsbray11

And that's just a few inches of flesh covering. Imagine 10's of feet of debris surrounding and covering the parts of the buildings that were first "compromised." Then on top of that, you aren't just a foot or two away, you're much farther. And you can only test dust that is that far away. That is nowhere near the same. And not an accepted way to test for explosives at a crime scene like this.

Touche, this is the crux of the dust samples studies when compared to what should have been done.

I have looked at some of the findings in jthomas' link and these are the elements most prevalent in the samples taken. Don't know what it means specifically but here they are in order of highest amount on down.

Zn-zinc
Ti-titanium (I found this one interesting)

These first two were 2 to 3 times more prevalent then any other elements

Al-aluminum
Mn-manganese
Sr-strontium
Ba-barium (also interesting)
Cr-chromium (interesting)
Pb-lead
Cu-copper
Mg-magnesium

Traces of Ca-calsium and S-sulfur were present too.

Any explosive experts care to explain what types of residue and/or elements would be present after a demo?

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

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

The study I refer to is strictly the dust study here:
ehp.niehs.nih.gov...

One cannot have any reasonable discussion unless and until you are willing to acknowledge that.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Show me a single source that says this is a scientifically rigorous or accepted way to test for explosive residues.

You claim that the chemical analysis of settled dust is not acceptable so please refer us to the sources for your claim.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Touche, this is the crux of the dust samples studies when compared to what should have been done.

That is just bsbray11's claim. He has provided no sources to validate his claims which is why we have no reason to accept them.

I have looked at some of the findings in jthomas' link and these are the elements most prevalent in the samples taken. Don't know what it means specifically but here they are in order of highest amount on down.

They could not determine that unless they did chemical analysis of samples. Bsbray11 claims repeatedly that the chemical analysis of the settled dust samples cannot determine if or what explosives would have been used. He says this is not accepted methodology.

Nowhere, however, does bsbray11 back up that claim.

Originally posted by jthomas

They could not determine that unless they did chemical analysis of samples. Bsbray11 claims repeatedly that the chemical analysis of the settled dust samples cannot determine if or what explosives would have been used. He says this is not accepted methodology.

Nowhere, however, does bsbray11 back up that claim.

I don't make any claims either way.

You claim that explosive residue would have been detected by these dust sample studies.

There fore if no report of explosives is made then none was used?

My favorite quote from your link:

"The types of PAHs detected in these ini-
tial samples are similar to the PAHs detected
in air samples 3 weeks after the attack. The
fires continued at Ground Zero until 14
December 2001, resulting in the need for
longer exposure characterization for products
of incomplete combustion. The levels of
dioxin and PCBs are similar to those found
in the general environment."

And another quote I found interesting:

"...presence of contaminants that could affect
acute or long-term human health by inhala-
tion or ingestion."

And:

"In the inorganic analyses, we identified metals,
radionuclides, ionic species, asbestos, and inorganic species. In the organic analyses, we identified
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated dibenzodiox-
ins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, pesticides, phthalate esters, brominated diphenyl ethers, and
other hydrocarbons."

So the fires burned for three months and still no checking for 'accelerants'?

Link:ehp.niehs.nih.gov...

reply to post by jthomas


I already explained to you, jthomas, it is not my burden to prove the things YOU say.

If you want to peddle an air contamination study (of DUST) as if it was a test for explosives residues, you're going to have to show me that this is an accepted method for testing for explosives residues. Until then, I don't believe it, and I know the one thing you're good at is chasing your own tail in circles.

No one tested for explosives, except Steven Jones. And this is odd considering the WTC were already bombed in 1993 and not only did scores of witnesses report additional explosions on 9/11, but they still have not been explained with any evidence almost 10 years later, which is even more "odd" considering the magnitude of this event, and the scope and depth of investigation one would think it would warrant.

We already know you are comfortable speculating about the unanswered questions remaining from that day. Others aren't. The only thing that's going to change that, is answering the questions with evidence. No one has to prove anything to you, jthomas. We are the ones asking questions to those who were charged with investigating, you are just toting the line being questioned, and like I said, I know you are comfortable speculating on the trusting side when there is no data. That's good for you. But that's not my problem.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by jthomas


You say that no evidence has been refuted. How about the fact that 9/11 highjackers have been found alive for one? There is so much information that contradicts what the 9/11 commision would want us to believe. Im not going to sit here list all of it because we've all heard the arguments, and there is just so much. If you believe that none of this info merits a new investigation then im sorry to say you are either ignorrant, unintelligent, or know that 9/11 was staged and have some sort of intrest in attempting to convince the rest of us that it was not.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by jthomas

They could not determine that unless they did chemical analysis of samples. Bsbray11 claims repeatedly that the chemical analysis of the settled dust samples cannot determine if or what explosives would have been used. He says this is not accepted methodology.

Nowhere, however, does bsbray11 back up that claim.

I don't make any claims either way.

You claim that explosive residue would have been detected by these dust sample studies.

No, I did no such thing. I made it clear that bsbray11 has not demonstrated that testing the dust cannot detect explosive residue.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

I already explained to you, jthomas, it is not my burden to prove the things YOU say.

You need to demonstrate that doing tests on the settled dust to determine its chemical composition cannot reveal explosive residues. Your claim is that it cannot.

So simply demonstrate your claim. No one has any reason to accept your claim on faith.

Originally posted by roly21
reply to post by jthomas

 

You say that no evidence has been refuted. How about the fact that 9/11 highjackers have been found alive for one?

All of the hijackers are dead.

Originally posted by jthomas
You need to demonstrate that doing tests on the settled dust to determine its chemical composition cannot reveal explosive residues.

For the 3rd time in a row, jthomas, it is not my job to prove your claims for you.

Put up or shut up. Show me that testing these kinds of dust samples constitutes a legitimate test for explosives. So far you're just making stuff up and telling us to prove you wrong.


And as long as you think making stuff up and telling us to prove you wrong is legitimate, I might as well just go ahead and say,



The towers and WTC7 were blown up by a strategically-placed and strategically-timed combination of explosive and chemical/incendiary devices that compromised the structure in critical areas.

My evidence? Prove me wrong. If that works for you, might as well work for me too.


Whenever you feel like manning up and admitting no one tested for explosives, maybe I'll admit I don't have conclusive evidence of this -- yet. Until then, just prove me wrong, jthomas. Or else I must be correct.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
You need to demonstrate that doing tests on the settled dust to determine its chemical composition cannot reveal explosive residues.

For the 3rd time in a row, jthomas, it is not my job to prove your claims for you.

Sorry, I have no claims I have to prove.

Show me that testing these kinds of dust samples constitutes a legitimate test for explosives.

I don't have to. I've made no claims about the dust studies.

So far you're just making stuff up and telling us to prove you wrong.

Asking you repeatedly to support your claim about the dust study is not "making stuff up." I would think you would be anxious to support your claims if you have the evidence to do so.

Simply provide us with your source(s) that the chemical analysis of the dust to determine the chemical components of that dust I referenced cannot detect explosive residue.

It's a very simple and straightforward request that you should be able to fulfill.



[edit on 3-4-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas
Sorry, I have no claims I have to prove.

Except that testing dust -- as part of an air contamination study --- and not the steel itself is a legitimate way of checking for explosives residues.

Show me that testing these kinds of dust samples constitutes a legitimate test for explosives.

I don't have to. I've made no claims about the dust studies.

You are insinuating they are legitimate explosives tests. If you're not, then we agree that they are not, because I don't believe it and you'd be the one making the claim.

reply to post by WWu777


Actually...that would be an excellent starting point. Hold the people (if still breathing) accountable for the GOT incident. I believe any investigation would be successful if it was honest and followed EVERY lead no matter how repugnant. The Nuremberg trials were a great example of some getting justice served...not totally successful, what with project paperclip an all, but you get the idea.