Would a new 9/11 investigation really accomplish anything?

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.

I have made no such claims. I have asked you to demonstrate that the dust tests cannot detect explosive residue as you repeatedly claim. You have stated unequivocally that NO tests for "explosive residue" were done but haven't shown why the dust study to which I referred you would not detect explosive residue. It's a perfectly reasonable request.

You are insinuating they are legitimate explosives tests.

Asking you a straightforward question is not insinuation. 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.



[edit on 4-4-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas
I have made no such claims. I have asked you to demonstrate that the dust tests cannot detect explosive residue as you repeatedly claim.

You're asking me to prove a negative, instead of proving your own point yourself. I'm counting, this is at least 4 times I've already told you this. Either you can't understand it or you're trolling and should be reminded to stay on topic and not go in circles with the same nonsense over and over.

I'll say it again.

No one tested for explosives at the WTC. Except Steven Jones, and he hasn't tested much.

That's all I'm saying.

Now, if you want to bring up the air contamination study, be ready to prove it's a scientifically accepted method for testing for explosives, ie some precedent for that use. Because forensic investigators have never tested for explosives that way, and asking me to prove this is asking me to show you every single forensic investigation ever to show you none of them did it. That is one reason why it makes more sense for you to support your own claim with positive evidence. The other reason being because you're the one making the claim in the first place, though you deny it like you know something about Jedi mind tricks.

A new investigation would accomplish a lot IMO. It would demonstrate better then anything I know how utterly and completely corrupt our US Congress and the Federal Government is. Other then that its anyones guess if they could ever keep the genie inside the bottle after opening a full public Congressional Investigation.

Cheers-
Phil



[edit on 4-4-2010 by Phil Jayhan]

It seems to me that if the dust sample tests were actually used to determine if there were explosive residue, there would be a report somewhere that comes to a conclusion such as "No explosive residue was found in the dust samples" or "We have found explosive residue in the dust samples." I haven't seen a report say any such thing, and I really don't see why they would be so coy about revealing their conclusion.

I have read enough to know that something was up that day, and although I believe planes hit the WTC, tower 7 makes no sense. On that note, do we really want them to state that 911 was an inside job? What possibly could be the repercussions? Seems to me that it would be a bad idea to disclose such things. While we certainly could handle it, the rest of the mainstream world would probably blow itself up.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
I have made no such claims. I have asked you to demonstrate that the dust tests cannot detect explosive residue as you repeatedly claim.

You're asking me to prove a negative, ...

On the contrary. I have been asking you all along to provide positive evidence for your own claims.

I'll say it again.

No one tested for explosives at the WTC. Except Steven Jones, and he hasn't tested much.

And I'll remind you that is still your unsupported claim.

Because forensic investigators have never tested for explosives that way, ...

If you keep insisting that you know that, then simply tell us how you know. Show us. Simply reveal your source for your claim that the methodology of determining the chemical components of the settled dust cannot reveal explosive residue. Why can't you tell us?

...and asking me to prove this is asking me to show you every single forensic investigation ever to show you none of them did it.

You claimed you already know. Now you are claiming you cannot know. Which is it?

Originally posted by NIcon
It seems to me that if the dust sample tests were actually used to determine if there were explosive residue, there would be a report somewhere that comes to a conclusion such as "No explosive residue was found in the dust samples" or "We have found explosive residue in the dust samples." I haven't seen a report say any such thing, and I really don't see why they would be so coy about revealing their conclusion.

The dust study to which I have referred was undertaken to determine the chemical components of the settled dust, an unknown before the tests. The dust study revealed what chemical components were found and in what quantities. There is no necessity to list everything not found

Explosives are made from mixtures of chemicals and the chemical composition of all known explosives are known. The dust study data is available to anyone to analyze.

Bsbray11 claims that the dust study cannot reveal the chemical components of explosive residue. I am waiting for him to tell us how he knows that and provide his source(s) for his claim.

reply to post by jthomas


Jthomas, I know you are not this dense and I really wish moderators would step in when you go in completely unreasonable circles like this intentionally, just to avoid having a real discussion.

No one tested for explosives.

Your air contamination study doesn't count either until you prove that investigators actually test for residues like that. You never will, because they don't. Stop trolling internet forums and making things up.


And most of all stop acting like it's my burden to contradict all your bull crap as you make it up. You're the one spewing it, you prove it.



And this will be my final response to you because I'm just beating the hell out of a horse that was dead pages ago. People can read back my last 2 or 3 posts on this thread and be able to predict future responses to the exact same nonsense from you over and over and over. It's just circles. It's not my burden, it's yours, and your argument is too weak to prove so you just keep insisting it's my burden to prove you wrong. Your whole method here is just getting really old and no one actually reading your posts is that stupid jthomas.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by jthomas

The dust study to which I have referred was undertaken to determine the chemical components of the settled dust, an unknown before the tests. The dust study revealed what chemical components were found and in what quantities.

You know the fires burned for 3 months. I don't know about you, but why not test the stuff that was actually burning.

What was burning?

Hypothetically, would a new investigation accomplish anything jthomas?

Your 'side' would be vindicated in the end, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

You know the fires burned for 3 months. I don't know about you, but why not test the stuff that was actually burning.

This study is listed, but haven't read it:

American Scientist (2003) Researchers present findings on ground zero
chemical fire, 16 September 2003, 1:20.

Hypothetically, would a new investigation accomplish anything jthomas?

First, one has to demonstrate a reason and need for another investigation with convincing evidence to refute the data, evidence, and conclusions of the prior investigations. It is not sufficient to claim to "have questions", to claim they are "unanswered", and to claim they are valid without so demonstrating.

Your 'side' would be vindicated in the end, wouldn't it?

I have no "side" and it is a fallacy to assume so. I have nothing to gain or lose. There is not a skeptic like me that I know who is not 100% for the truth, no matter where it leads. I point out the failings in logic and reasoning, lack of evidence, and unfounded claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement and I ask Truthers to support their claims. I have asked bsbray11 logical and straightforward questions to support the claims he makes (while he strangely insists he does not make the claims he does) to show what Truthers will have to do get to first base if they want a new investigation.

Remember, the burden of proof lies with those who want to convince some entity for the need for another investigation. I'm trying to get that across to bsbray11 and he doesn't yet understand that trying to shift the burden of proof for his claims to others will not get him a new investigation.

Originally posted by jthomas
First, one has to demonstrate a reason and need for another investigation with convincing evidence to refute the data, evidence, and conclusions of the prior investigations. It is not sufficient to claim to "have questions", to claim they are "unanswered", and to claim they are valid without so demonstrating.

No one has proved it is physically possible for the buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other variable.

That is obviously enough of a reason to have another investigation.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
First, one has to demonstrate a reason and need for another investigation with convincing evidence to refute the data, evidence, and conclusions of the prior investigations. It is not sufficient to claim to "have questions", to claim they are "unanswered", and to claim they are valid without so demonstrating.

No one has proved it is physically possible for the buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other variable.

NIST showed how. No one has yet refuted the NIST reports.

And don't forget that no one has produced any positive evidence for explosives.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
First, one has to demonstrate a reason and need for another investigation with convincing evidence to refute the data, evidence, and conclusions of the prior investigations. It is not sufficient to claim to "have questions", to claim they are "unanswered", and to claim they are valid without so demonstrating.

No one has proved it is physically possible for the buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other variable.

That is obviously enough of a reason to have another investigation.

That is simply false. NIST has concluded that the collapses were indeed quite possible without explosives.

If the American Society of Civil Engingeers was to start voicing concerns over this then I would be concerned. Fact is they are not and I am not concerned about the amateur views of armchair youtube watchers.

Originally posted by jthomas
NIST showed how. No one has yet refuted the NIST reports.

What did the NIST reports prove again, specifically, and how exactly did they prove that?

And don't forget that no one has produced any positive evidence for explosives.

Besides all the explosions in all three buildings that day, and scores of people testifying to that, video recordings and all of those things. Those are not proof, but they would certainly be evidence that would tip real investigators off to the possibility.

Was there a claim made in this thread saying "NIST showed how" it was possible for the buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other variable? I'd like to know how they showed this or how the poster thinks they showed this. I don't think it's sufficient to claim they "showed how" without so demonstrating.

Originally posted by NIcon
Was there a claim made in this thread saying "NIST showed how" it was possible for the buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other variable? I'd like to know how they showed this or how the poster thinks they showed this. I don't think it's sufficient to claim they "showed how" without so demonstrating.

You are free to read the NIST report anytime.

Well some active debunking is going on here...the 911 truth movement was terribly infiltrated in the beginning I do believe--I cannot prove this, but it is based on correspondence that I had pertaining to the following subject matter below. I'm a metallurgist with over 20 years experience, including the development of aluminum and copper based alloys. I have worked with steel mills regarding desulfurization practices for steel and the control of carbide and sulfide formation in the as-cast microstructure. If you want published stuff, sorry, everything I work on is proprietary as I work in the private sector. Not a cop out, I'm just saying...

Appendix C of the 911 report is an investigation into the microstructure of the A36 steel used for the I-beams. The metallurgists concluded that sulfidation and oxidation of the steel occurred which cannot be explained. This is not a conclusion at all--it's a generalization. Sulfidation and oxidation are always occurring, so you need to look into the details about the sulfide and oxide species within the steel. And, what is thermodynamically necessary to form them. Then, think about the conditions...the metallurgists were told that the steel was exposed to temperatures up to 2,000 F which is not enough to melt the steel, but will reduce it's tensile properties significantly.

Clearly in the microstructure, where the I-Beam fractured, there was a surface layer that was melted and re-solidified under high temperatures and extremely oxidizing conditions. This surface layer was compositionally different than the underlying, unaffected steel which showed typical manganese sulfides that are a hallmark of clean steel--after desulfurization, manganese is added since it will preferentially combine with any remaining sulfur to form a sulfide that is not very detrimental to the mechanical properties. So, the steel was melted under some unusual conditions...this is FACT. To deny that this steel was melted would violate several laws of thermodynamics. Not theory, Laws.

Due to the iron sulfide and iron oxide phases that formed only in this layer, an oxidizing reaction likely promoted the melting of this surface and formation of the phases. This looks nearly identical to a heat affected zone (HAZ) typically associated with welding, thermite welding in particular--that is for steel but you'll see a similar layer in cast iron. Now things begin to go into speculation, but thermate has sulfur in it to lower the temperature at which the sulfur species melts. This is a logical starting point that could be re-created through experimentation. And, let me tell you, under the right conditions any thermite (metal oxide) reaction can be an amazing explosion if you maximize the factors that drive the reaction liberating the oxide. I created some thermite reactions for safety videos while at an Aluminum company. I stopped trying to videotape a thermite reaction because I couldn't contain the flying, molten aluminum well enough. But, I digress...

I don't think that there is any point in a formal investigation...it will lead to more of the same. Why would people assassinate the character of the people that are correct just because their credentials aren't correct in some person's mind? Why would people accept the obvious incorrect conclusion by someone just because they have the credentials? Because they don't understand the science at hand and cannot argue about the facts...my 2 cents.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by ibiubu]

Originally posted by Alfie1
That is simply false. NIST has concluded that the collapses were indeed quite possible without explosives.

You are uninformed, misinformed, or lying.

No has proven that it is physically possible for those building to collapse like that without explosives or some other unknown variable.

The idea that it could happen without explosives or some other unknown variable is speculation based on assumptions.

There is no reason substantiated by evidence to believe it is physically possible.

reply to post by jthomas

I have read it Mr. Thomas, and some parts I've read quite a few times. But the simple act of me reading the NIST report has nothing to do with your unsupported claim that "NIST showed how" it is physically possible for the buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other variable. I really am interested in how and why you can claim "NIST showed how"? I believe this is a perfectly reasonable request.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by NIcon]