Formally published in a peer-reviewed Chemical Physics journal, today:

“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen

The paper ends with this sentence: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

######


Building a Better Mirage: NIST’s 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, Dec 8, 2005

a critique of the
Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team
on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers
by the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster

NIST’s Report sidesteps the very question it purported to investigate: what caused the total destruction of the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers? Version 1.0, just published, critiques NIST’s Final Report.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

#########

WERTHER, a Northern VA defense analyst, told us back in 2006 of http://911citizenswatch.org/?p=814#more-814 the six questions they don’t want us to ask about 9/11. Not much appears to have changed in three years.

The six questions:

1. Who is Osama bin Laden, and where did he come from?
2. When were Osama’s last non-hostile links with the U.S. government?
3. How did the President of United States React to the August 6 2001 President’s Daily Brief?
[3a. Was the summer vacation really a planning and strategy session for 9/11?]
4. Who wrote the script for the rhetorical response to 9/11?

[“A war that will not end in our lifetimes,” said Vice President Cheney on Meet the Press on the very Sunday following the attacks. How could he be so sure during the fog of uncertainty following the strike? If bin Laden and his followers were merely a limited number of fanatics living in Afghan caves, as we were assured at the time, why did the Bush administration relentlessly advance the meme that a decades-long war was inevitable?… It is curious that no one–not the watchdogs of the supposedly adversary media, nor the nominal opposition party in Washington, nor otherwise intelligent observers–has remarked on this seeming contradiction: victory is just around the corner, yet the war will last for decades. Quite in the manner of the war between Eastasia and Oceania in 1984.]

5. Why did the mysterious anthrax attacks come and go like a wraith?
6. Why did Osama bin Laden escape?

http://www.counterpunch.org/werther02182006.html
http://911citizenswatch.org/?p=814

Question 7: How did the world's mightiest air force, capable of stopping supersonic USSR bombers, fail to stop 4 subsonic passenger planes? And with an hour's advance notice.

Question 8: Why did WTC 7 which was not hit by a plane, also collapse into its footprint? No other such steel structure has ever been brought down by fire, including the First Interstate Bank building in LA which burned for more than 24 hours?

You have already seen my pilot questions as to how 19 bumbling middle-eastern men...

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe - 2009-04-03 Discovered in the WTC unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, which is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.

Beware of falling fairy dust!!!!!



http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm



lenal

This is a phony debunking site.

Why are you using a link from a website that wants to keep the official story going? (and the link is from years ago...this story is from NOW
and by a whole series of scientists.

Don't you want the truth to come out?

any site that uses the word conspiracy theory you know is a fake site.

The conspiracy theory is the official story.

Since skepticism is allowed here, I should point out that explosive material is not the same thing as a bomb. I'm not saying that there was no bomb. This may be evidence of a bomb, but not absolute proof. Absolute proof would be explosive material in conjunction with proof of a detonating device by design.

It wouldn't surprise me if this material is dismissed as a hazardous material from some experiment or object for purposes other than a bomb. It also wouldn't surprise me if even evidence of a detonating device were dismissed as a possession of the hijackers.

Almost every piece of scientific evidence can be dismissed when trying to convict someone of a crime. Even a smoking gun can be dismissed if planted decoy evidence brings reasonable doubt to a precise theory of events. The most incriminating evidence would be the motive and money trail.

we know the motive, we know the money trail
we even know the owner of the WTC said bring 'her down and it was

we know when
we know where
we know how
we know why
we know what

the only thing we don't have is convictions, and most likely there never will be any
because they are covered up

(and watch, someone will bring out the debunked crap from popular mechanics too)

but more than 60% of the public knows something is wrong with the official story

and 100% of the official story has to prove 100% correct, otherwise it is a total lie.

and the oracle of CGCS speaks?

In the post insisting "we" know this, this, this etc

would you please identify the names that constitute "we" and references to same as well as their CV's?


Matter of fact I don't believe either the "official" or the conspiracy stories.......a skeptic forever.


lenal

so then why don't YOU want the official story to prove itself?

Because, it goes without saying, if an official story has a sliver even 1% lie, then there is no official story

And I have never seen you on any 9-11 threads before at all, and coming in and poo-pooing this story, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt
just plays into THEIR hands

THEY-THEIR-THEM-=the official story writers Bush41/Cheney/Baker/Rumsfeld/Jeb,Wolfie,Pearle, etc.

WE=anyone who DOESN'T believe the official story

any minutia need not be proven by those that don't believe the official story
EVERY LITTLE SLIVER of the official story needs to proven by the writers of the fiction known as the official story

after all, WE all know 19 bumblers did not do the Israeli precision like hits on 2 buildings and have 4 fall down, along with the magic passport floating into the arms of the one person (the Harley jacket guy was it?) who named all 19

while a 6ft.11 giant roams cave to cave with a dialysis machine

(and who is NOT on the FBI list for that crime).

You are right - and how you love claiming that - I mean you are right that I have not posted here on the 9/11 threads.

And your response (?) or should one say, non-respoonse, above is exactly why.

Do NOT include me in your editorial "WE" -

lenal

Not a bomb, Bill.

Thermate.

It's a mixture of powdered aluminum and a metal oxide, and when ignited it gets EXTREMELY HOT, hot enough to cut through steel like a knife through butter. By placing the thermate charges at the proper locations, a tall sky-scraper can be brought straight down into its footprint. Demolition teams do this all the time to bring down a building.

One must ask why BushCo was is such a hurry to recycle WTC steel to China. There was no time for analysis of the debris steel.

Meanwhile, there were particles in the dust that fell in lower Manhattan which have been analyzed and contain traces of these elements. There is no other way they could have gotten there.

Professor Steven Jones from Utah is the chief proponent of this research.

Graham, unfortunately this kind of response is to be expected from you. Now maybe these people are making the lamest case in the world, or maybe it is a slam-dunk killer case, but from your feeble post here no one's understanding on such a question is advanced to the slightest degree.

The samples being examined of course came from the WTC on 9/11, so what does it matter when the articles came out? Now maybe the recent article by Jones et al. has points that the 911 Debunking site does not deal with, but you say nothing about that possibility. Did you even think of that? I, a skeptic, thought of that! But 90% of how you deal with those saying things you don't like is to denigrate their motives, as opposed to rebutting their case.

The paper in question was published in a peer-reviewed process in a journal published by a well-known scientific publishing house and since there seems to be some questions about the validity of the findings, I thought I'd go see if I could find out who those peers were, and who it was that took responsibility for the validity of the research and its findings.

Here's what I found:

on this web page http://jcp.aip.org/jcp/staff.jsp :

Editors

Editor
Marsha I. Lester (E-mail: editor-jcp@chem.upenn.edu)
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Associate Editors
Edward W. Castner, Jr. (E-mail: editor@jcp.rutgers.edu)
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA

David W. Chandler (E-mail: editor@jcp.colostate.edu)
Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California, USA

Ernest R. Davidson (E-mail: editor2-jcp@chem.upenn.edu)
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

Branka M. Ladanyi (E-mail: editor@jcp.colostate.edu)
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

David E. Manolopoulos (E-mail: editor2-jcp@chem.upenn.edu)
University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Todd J. Martínez (E-mail: editor2-jcp@chem.upenn.edu)
Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA

Horia Metiu (E-mail: jcpeditor@chem.ucsb.edu)
University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA

Murugappan Muthukumar (E-mail: jcpeditor@chem.ucsb.edu)
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA

Interim Editor, 2007–2008: Branka M. Ladanyi
Editor, 1998–2007: Donald H. Levy
Editor, 1983–1997: John C. Light
Editor, 1960–1982: John Willard Stout, Jr.
Editor, 1958–1959: Clyde A. Hutchison, Jr.
Acting Editor, 1956–1957: Joseph E. Mayer
Editor, 1953–1955: Clyde A. Hutchison, Jr.
Editor, 1942–1952: Joseph E. Mayer
Editor, 1933–1941: Harold C. Urey

Back to Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Board

Term ending 31 December 2009
Steve Granick (University of Illinois, Urbana, IL)
R. J. Dwayne Miller (University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada)
Abraham Nitzan (Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel)
Jens K. Norskov (Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark)
Thomas P. Russell (University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA)
Alan K. Soper (Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Oxon, UK)
Attila Szabo (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD)
Term ending 31 December 2010
Irène Burghardt (Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, France)
Fumio Hirata (Institute for Molecular Science, Okazaki, Japan)
Malcolm H. Levitt (Southampton University, Southampton, UK)
Andrew J. Orr-Ewing (University of Bristol, Bristol, UK)
Annabella Selloni (Princeton University, Princeton, NJ)
Devarajan Thirumalai (University of Maryland, College Park, MD)
Andrei Tokmakoff (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA)
Term ending 31 December 2011
Biman Bagchi (Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India)
Stephen E. Bradforth (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA)
Bjørk Hammer (University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark)
Ingolf V. Hertel (Max Born Institute, Berlin, Germany)
Bruce D. Kay (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA)
Anna I. Krylov (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA)
Nancy Makri (University of Illinois, Urbana, IL)
Shaul Mukamel (University of California, Irvine, CA)
Edwin L. Sibert (University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI)
Douglas J. Tobias (University of California, Irvine, CA)
Back to Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial Offices
Main Journal Office—University of Pennsylvania:
Marsha I. Lester, Editor
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Department of Chemistry
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6323
USA

Telephone: 215-573-1184 (JCP-UPenn office)
Fax: 215-573-2842 (JCP-UPenn office)
E-mail: editor-jcp@chem.upenn.edu
Staff: Dahlia Fisch


Colorado State University:
Branka M. Ladanyi, Associate Editor
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Department of Chemistry
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523-1872
USA

Telephone: 970-491-3310 (JCP-CSU office)
Fax: 970-491-3361 (JCP-CSU office)
E-mail: editor@jcp.colostate.edu
Staff: Josephine Self


Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey:
Edward W. Castner, Jr., Associate Editor
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
610 Taylor Road
Piscataway, NJ 08854-8087
USA

Telephone: 215-573-1184 (JCP-UPenn office)
Fax: 215-573-2842 (JCP-UPenn office)
E-mail: editor@jcp.rutgers.edu
Staff: Dahlia Fisch


Sandia National Laboratories:
David W. Chandler, Associate Editor
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Combustion Research Facility
Sandia National Laboratories
P.O. Box 969
Livermore, CA 94551-0969
USA

Telephone: 970-491-3310 (JCP-CSU office)
Fax: 970-491-3361 (JCP-CSU office)
E-mail: editor@jcp.colostate.edu
Staff: Josephine Self


University of California, Santa Barbara:
Horia Metiu, Associate Editor
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Department of Chemistry
University of California, Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
USA

Telephone: 805-893-8771 (JCP-UCSB office)
Fax: 805-893-5460 (JCP-UCSB office)
E-mail: jcpeditor@chem.ucsb.edu
Staff: Donna Baumann


Stanford University:
Todd J. Martínez, Associate Editor
Ernest R. Davidson, Associate Editor
The Journal of Chemical Physics
333 Campus Drive
Department of Chemistry
S. G. Mudd Building
Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305-5080
USA

Telephone: 215-573-1184 (JCP-UPenn office)
Fax: 215-573-2842 (JCP-UPenn office)
E-mail: editor2-jcp@chem.upenn.edu
Staff: Elizabeth Zak


University of Massachusetts:
Murugappan Muthukumar, Associate Editor
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Department of Polymer Science and Engineering
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
USA

Telephone: 805-893-8771 (JCP-UCSB office)
Fax: 805-893-5460 (JCP-UCSB office)
E-mail: jcpeditor@chem.ucsb.edu
Staff: Donna Baumann


University of Oxford:
David E. Manolopoulos, Associate Editor
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Physical and Theoretical Chemistry Laboratory
University of Oxford
South Parks Road
Oxford OX1 3Q2
United Kingdom

Telephone: 215-573-1184 (JCP-UPenn office)
Fax: 215-573-2842 (JCP-UPenn office)
E-mail: editor2-jcp@chem.upenn.edu
Staff: Elizabeth Zak

So there is a plethora of people, with both phone numbers and e-mail addresses, that I could contact if I wanted to inquire...



Would either Arne or bill or lenal do me the flavor and
post a comparable list of names, titles, e-mail addresses and phone numbers
for the people who stand behind 911myths?

http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm

I'll take Nano-Engineered Aluminothermic Incendiaries for $1,000, please, Alex.


Three new papers have been published at 911research.wtc7.net


Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust: Scientists Discover Both Residues And Unignited Fragments Of High-Tech Metal Incendiaries In Debris From the Twin Towers - A non-technical guide to the newly published paper explaining the identification of nano-engineered explosive materials in dust from the Twin Towers

Introduction - The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples. The present review of the paper and related research is intended to summarize those findings for the non-technical reader. To that end, I first provide a short introduction to the subject of aluminothermic explosives, then outline the methods and results of analysis of the dust samples, and finally explore the significance of these findings.

***

Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives: As Documentation of Thermitic Materials in the WTC Twin Towers Grows, Official Story Backers Ignore, Deny, Evade, and Dissemble - A detailed record of the development of bodies of evidence showing the use of aluminothermic pyrotechnics

Introduction - The obliteration of the Twin Towers was the centerpiece of the event that launched the 'War on Terror'. Shocking on multiple levels, the events were especially traumatic for Americans, being the first bombing on the US mainland in modern history that killed thousands of people -- civilians -- in one day. Given the collective psychological trauma of the attack, it is not surprising that public discourse would remain free of observations that the destruction of the Twin Towers bore obvious features of controlled demolitions. Early candid public remarks by reporters and demolition experts where quickly retracted or forgotten. Passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Afghanistan would proceed apace.

By 2003 the United States had two occupations, and an international reputation as a rogue state all resting on a shaky-at-best collapse theory whose principle alternative hypothesis -- controlled demolition with pre-planted pyrotechnics -- had not even been tested by the straightforward forensic analysis of debris for residues of such materials.

By early 2009, the residue testing that NIST refused to do had been done by independent researchers, and published in a chemistry journal. Small bi-layered chips, found consistently in dust samples, have layers of red nano-engineered material that is clearly aluminothermic: it has sub-micron-diameter particles of largely of elemental aluminum, and smaller crystalline grains of primarily Fe2O3. On ignition, the chips produce temperatures above the melting point of iron, leaving tiny iron droplets matching the residues of commercial thermite pyrotechnics.

The publication of these results should be astounding to anyone who uncritically accepted the collapse explanations in TV documentaries and never looked seriously at any of the several bodies of evidence for controlled demolition.

The NIST investigation, having posted its Final Report with its absurd Building 7 joint-breaking-thermal-expansion theory in late 2008 and FAQ by Christmas, closed its doors before the independent researchers published their findings of active aluminothermic materials in WTC dust in a mainstream scientific journal; but not before they publicized findings of aluminothermic residues in the same dust samples; and not before they extracted from NIST a series of public statements, in press conferences and in written responses to requests for corrections (RFCs), about the conduct of their inquiry into the cause of the skyscrapers' total destruction.

As a result, NIST spokespersons are on the record saying they did not test for pyrotechnics, and offering rationale for failing to test. Those rationale -- or rationalizations -- summarized toward the end of this essay, include the assertion that testing for pyrotechnics "would not necessarily have been conclusive". That is partially true: failing to find pyrotechnic residues wouldn't rule out demolition, since demolition might have been implemented using an untraceable fuel such as hydrogen gas. But finding abundant and distributed pyrotechnic explosive residues would conclusively favor demolition -- particularly given the persuasive deductive arguments showing that the features of the buildings' destruction are incompatable with a purely gravity-driven collapse.

The following timeline is narrowly focused on the emergence of public evidence indicating the use of aluminothermic pyrotechnics -- ranging from incendiaries to high-explosives -- in the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7, and on the response of official investigations -- particular NIST's -- to that evidence.

***


A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario: A Plausible Theory Explaining the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers Using Aluminothermic Incendiaries and Explosives with Wireless Ignition Means


Introduction - Most science-based investigators of the events of 9/11/2001 are reluctant to develop detailed hypotheses or conjectures for obvious reasons: to speculate about unknown events in a criminal conspiracy is to invite the label of "conspiracy theorist" with its weight of discrediting associations, unless, of course, one is parroting the speculations of the officially endorsed account.

Never mind that NIST explains WTC7's destruction as the first-ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise building with the refreshingly novel failure mechanism -- supported by no physical evidence whatsoever -- that thermally induced expansion of a huge beam caused it to break loose of its connections and crash down, taking the rest of the skyscraper with it. It is the skeptics of this fairy tale that New York Times reporter Eric Lipton calls conspiracy theorists.1

The chief apologists for the official story seem to want it both ways. On the one hand, they stigmatize anyone who questions the official version of events as a "conspiracy theorist". On the other, they fault the same intellectual dissidents for not articulating a detailed theory of the crime, as Ryan Mackey does here. How interesting that the conspiracy theorist label remains the first line of defense against the consideration of alternative hypotheses, while the main arguments against controlled demolition of the Twin Towers appeal to alleged difficulties in implementation -- arguments that can only be answered through postulating hypothetical scenarios.
Here, then, is such a scenario -- in much more detail than suggestions I have previously made to answer frequently asked questions -- that I hope will be useful to other investigators working to solve the horrific crime of '9/11'.

Formally published in a peer-reviewed Chemical Physics journal, today:

“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen

The paper ends with this sentence: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

In short, the paper explodes the official story that “no evidence” exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings.

What is high-tech explosive/pyrotechnic material in large quantities doing in the WTC dust? Who made tons of this stuff and why? Why have government investigators refused to look for explosive residues in the WTC aftermath?

These are central questions raised by this scientific study.

The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments....

More here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761

***************



full paper here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermit...e_timeline.html

Three excerpts:


ABEL: ... what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time....

--Conversation between a reporter and a NIST spokesperson.

###

NIST leaves the five bodies of physical evidence directly indicating the use of aluminothermic pyrotechnics unaddressed and begging to be investigated. It never so much as mentioned the phenomenon what the New York Times described as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation" and highlighted by the FEMA Report as needing "detailed study": the sulfidated and "evaporated" steel. Clearly intended to be the final word on the crux of the event that launched the "war that won't end in our lifetimes", the NIST 'investigation' calls for no further investigation of these or any of the other glaring anomalies in the collapse story.

###

How might investigators begin unravelling the web of complicity surrounding the perpetrators in order to identify suspects? Here are some questions they should consider:

Who had access to all parts of the buildings, and hence the ability to install explosives?

Who had access to the types of nano-engineered explosives whose fragments and residues are found in the World Trade Center dust? Given the connections between NIST and research into nano-structured aluminothermics, why has its WTC team acted as though such materials don't exist?

Who was behind attempts to redirect Steven Jones away from his investigation of World Trade Center dust?

Who has been working hand-in-glove with collapse story defenders by promoting and cultivating nonsense as 9-11 truth, supplying NIST with its key excuse for rejecting evidence? Why, for example, would a former Bush administration official proclaim that the Towers were demolished only to insist that no jetliners hit the Towers?

Who is behind the obvious agenda of the NIST investigation to present a ludicrous fairy tale as "incredibly conclusive findings", while systematically ignoring all evidence of the actual crime?


****




full paper here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermit...e_residues.html

Two excerpts:

The discovery of active thermitic materials adds to a vast body of evidence that the total destruction of the Towers were controlled demolitions, and to the subset of that evidence indicating the use of aluminothermic materials to implement those demolitions.

That discovery also undermines the oft-heard claim that no explosives residues were found, a claim that was never compelling, given the apparent lack of evidence that any official agency looked for evidence of explosive residues of any kind. Worse, the public record shows that NIST not only failed to look for such evidence, it repeatedly evaded requests by scientists and researchers to examine numerous facts indicating explosives and incendiaries .



How Could the Demolition Equipment Have Been Installed in the Twin Towers Without Tenants Noticing?

The simple answer is by disguising the equipment as normal building components, so that not even the workers installing the components are aware of the concealed pyrotechnics. Three aspects of the Hypotetical Blasting Scenario that facilitate this are: the stability and specificity of ignition conditions achievable with aluminothermic pyrotechnics, minimization of the required access to steelwork, and the use of a completely wireless ignition control system.

***

This is sufficient evidence to justify a new investigation.
DO NOT LET NYC, NY STATE AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS IGNORE THIS EVIDENCE.

The names listed here, while impressive, are from a different discipline than that pertinent to the recent papers and the work pre-dates the most recent papers and the process of their work has been challenged by the three most recent papers.

Try again, Arne.

1. So engineering is not the proper field?

2. These papers you are promoting "win" because they have been published most recently?

3. Or do they effectively rebut the points of the other papers?

the papers PROOVE it.

America wins when the truth comes out and the official story once and for all is proven in open court for the lie it is.

Why would anyone want to cover it up? That is what I personally do not understand.

like the quote by brecht says...

Graham, there are a lot of things you don't seem to understand, I think perhaps because you often ask the wrong questions, not because you are incapable at getting at the answers. (But getting at the answers is often very difficult.)

The papers prove it? Well maybe they do. Maybe the papers you don't like prove what they are trying to say. Maybe neither set proves much of anything. I would submit that it is a hard thing to determine, particular for those of us on this forum, and at the moment I am not aware that anyone here has anything that could be called expertise in this area.

Sorry, Arne.. I was in a rush and couldn't take the time to be very specific.

Engineering is a proper field for discussion of some related to collapse issues and theories, but it is not the only field. No, it's not a question of recency versus primacy in publishing, it's a question that recency may (or may not) extend the discussion into a different area, branch or argument that wasn't addressed in the earlier papers. So, no, I don't (or they don't) "win" the argument by posting last. The issue as I see it (and they see it) is that the NIST argument or the "it didn't happen that way" or "fairy dust" contingent failed to consider, look for, or address evidence of explosive technology or presence; they didn't rebut it because they haven't addressed it.

In a similar manner, you failed to address my earlier question. I gave you a "bye" or a pass for a moment because I was in a hurry and because in one sense you did address it. You put up names and credentials of folks from an engineering discipline whose work formed the basis for early NIST efforts or earlier debunking efforts, which had some validity, but that isn't the question I asked.

I asked you to put up the names, credentials, titles, and contact people for the folks who were behind the 911myths web site whose argument you and others are using as your own. That information seems to be singularly missing, as the published articles of Popular Mechanics also hid behind the recent purchase of that magazine just prior to its infamous publication and also clouded over the intelligence agency connections of its recently appointed Editor.

While the same question can (and ought to be) asked of so-called 9/11 conspiracy sites, some of that information is available and is published. But even that's not the point.

This thread started with the publication of a peer-reviewed paper from within a specialized field whose authors, editors and peer review process is open to examination and inquiry; your rebuttal was on the basis of information posted by the mysterious 911 myths web site or the previously-questioned and debunked work of NIST/FEMA and other 'involved' agencies. It seems that your attack on the credibility of the paper and its authors, publishers and findings is a masquerade for the lack of credibility in the arguments put up by the "fairy dust" contingent.

So, again, the question is this:

Who is behind the 911myths web site? Name, connections, background, et al.

Why and how is one argument more credible than the other?

1. Mag, actually if you look at 911 Myths they have a section concerning the question of thermite, so they do indeed address it. Did they address it well? Well, one would have to actually look at what they said, and if we wanted to discuss that question we would have to discuss what they said.

2. There is a peer-reviewed paper contained in the 911 Debunker site that Lenal posted, with names and websites.

3. I attack the credibility of the authors and publishers of the article by Jones and company? No, I have merely suggested that there is another side, posted a link to that other side on the thread started by Graham in Online Cafe, as Lenal posted a link on this thread, and said that Graham was a bit off-base in his response denigrating the site that Lenal cited (which I am also obviously familiar with, as I have cited them before myself).

4. How to determine who has a better argument? That can be difficult, as I said, for people without engineering and scientific expertise. But that does not mean we are all helpless, we could at least take a stab at it by looking at what is said by both sides, do a comparison and judge as best we can. I for one think that to be the best approach.

Now I certainly think that a propery peer-reviewed paper would carry some especial weight in the disuccsion, but peer-reviewed does not mean not be questioned, especially if there are peer-reviewed papers of contrary views.

but those sites are based on up to 6 year old arguments and those sites only existed to specifically get rid of
anyone questioning the official story

and, to put it in terms of where this board is from

those sites are equal to the guy (J.Cursi?) who funded the swiftboat campaign against John Kerry.
Pure and simple.
the people behind that were similiar (and working for the same people) as the ones who swiftboated John Kerry
(and also they are simliar to people who think the earth is flat and not round)

so why anyone here would want to swiftboat John Kerry, when his board was founded because of john Kerry is beyond me.

besides- the point of importance is-
the official story needs to proove the official story is true.
There are way too many questions now for the official story to be taken as true
One does not need to disprove the other side. That is just a red herring.
One needs to proove the official story is true. And under oath. with supoena's and jail time for those that lie or take the 5th.

Nice to see that you are just as devoted to Constitutional rights as you are to objectivity in seeking the truth.

If we could devise a methodology for exploring these issues without choosing up sides, I think we would see a lot more progress.

Well I have suggested discussing the issues, weighing the merits of the contending cases, but apparently such an approach is unacceptable to a few here.

I have tried to raise a few things to consider on the Online Cafe thread. Here I would suggest this as a good issue, are the substances in the samples Jones et al. examined a definite marker of explosives, or could they have other origins? It is just possible that just by reading their article, even without technical knowledge, one could get an idea about that.

RLA, are you talking about devising methodologies in the thread, or in the outer world of politics?

"Outdoors", approaches to both scientific theory and criminal investigation are widely available but, in here, we don't have access to them.

Out there, sides have been chosen as well; in here, I doubt we'd make much progress even with a well-devised system; I offer as evidence the thread underway in the section closed to non-members.

Out there, the political process (mirrored in here) won't allow a well-devised methodology to be put in place; I offer up as evidence the NIST studies, the 911 Commission itself, and the entire history of retrospective review and investigation of what went down that day. Out there, it was delayed, obstructed, tampered with, diverted, targeted, and manipulated; how might it be different in here?

In short, I have no doubt that a coherent, sound, effective methodology can be devised; how can we insure that it isn't tampered with and that its results - fairly and soundly derived -- will be honored?

At the time that I wrote that I was thinking about in here...however, I do think that the political process out there is mirrowed in here (if one corrects for sampling error)...otherwise, participation
would not be worthwhile...

arne never in a million years will go against PP.
For whatever reason inferred or exferred or preferred or whatever the word is.

others will never go against the truism- along with others, PP lied and 1.98 million have died.
or as the brecht quote says ...
"As Brecht once said: "A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot
but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook".

and it oil boils down to that

Based on a post over at Electric Politics by the career foreign-service officer named George Kenny,
here is the study in question which you may download, save, read and digest: http://electricpolitics.com/media/docs/7TOCPJ.pdf

If there are questions and issues, you may write directly to the authors as follows:

Address correspondence to these authors (NH) Department of Chemistry,
University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark;
Tel: (+45)35321846; Fax: (+45)35320460; E-mail: harrit@nano.ku.dk,
(SEJ) at S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA; Tel: 801-735-5885;
E-mail: Hardevidence@gmail.com

Here is the journal it was published in (I apparently made a mistake above in citing a different one):
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/EBM.htm

Here is its editorial team:

Editor-in-Chief:

Prof. Marie-Paule Pileni
Faculty of Science
Laboratoire des Matériaux Mésoscopiques et Nanomètriques
University P & M Curie Paris
France

Editorial Advisory Board:

N.O. Andersen (Denmark)
J.M. Anglada (Spain)
A.T. Balaban (USA)
A.S. Barnard (Australia)
V. Barone (Italy)
M.N. Berberan-Santos (Portugal)
M. Bergström (Sweden)
A. Bianco (Italy)
U. Boesl (Germany)
F. Bresme (UK)
T. Bürgi (Switzerland)
D. Cahen (Israel)
D. Canet (France)
L.A.D. Carlos (Portugal)
T.-W.D. Chan (Hong Kong)
M. Chergui (Switzerland)
P.T. Chou (Taiwan)
P. Conte (Italy)
A. Corma (Spain)
M. Cotlet (USA)
G. Delgado-Barrio (Spain)
J. Delhommelle (USA)
L.R. Domingo (Spain)
O. Dopfer (Germany)
C. Dybowski (USA)
J. Enderlein (Germany)
F. Endres (Germany)
A. Frontera (Spain)
L. Frydman (Israel)
H. Fukumura (Japan)
K.-H. Gericke (Germany)
F.A. Gianturco (Italy)
J. Grotemeyer (Germany)
P. Hanggi (Germany)
M. Hochlaf (France)
P. Jensen (Germany)
A.L. Kawczynski (Poland)
D.E. Khoshtariya (Georgia)
B.K. Kim (Korea)
H.K. Kim (Korea)
P.B. Kingsley (USA)
P. Knauth (France)
O. Kuehn (Germany)
L.M. Lawson Daku (Switzerland)
R. Lavery (France)
J. Leszczynski (USA)
H. Liang (China)
J. Limtrakul (Thailand)
M. Liu (USA)
X.-Q. Lu (China)
Y. Luo (Sweden)
O.L. Malta (Brazil)
R.L. Mancera (Austraila)
V. Mandelshtam (USA)
D. Mandler (Israel)
G. Maofa (China)
M. Mas-Torrent (Spain)
M. Meuwly (Switzerland)
E.A. Muller (UK)
A. Niño (Spain)
N.Y. Ohrn (USA)
T. Oka (USA)
D.W. Pang (China)
A.P. Pathak (India)
R.J.M. Pellenq (France)
J. Pérez-Prieto (Spain)
P. Piecuch (USA)
N. Pinna (Portugal)
J.M. Pitarke (Spain)
T. Plakhotnik (Australia)
W.S. Price (Australia)
A. Quandt (Germany)
L.G. Rio (Spain)
J.R. Sabin (USA)
E. Sackmann (Germany)
P. Samorì (Italy)
A. Samoson (Estonia)
M. Schmitt (Germany)
F.-S. Sheu (Singapore)
T.E. Simos (Greece)
C. Simpson (New Zealand)
Z. Slanina (Japan)
M. Speranza (Italy)
L.K. Tamm (USA)
P. Terech (France)
M. Toyoda (Japan)
J. Traeger (Australia)
D.D. Traficante (USA)
V. van Speybroeck (Belgium)
J. van Stam (Sweden)
A.J.C. Varandas (Portugal)
W. Veeman (Germany)
J. Vigo-Aguiar (Spain)
P. Wang (China)
J. Waluk (Poland)
T. Wohland (Singapore)
M. Yañez (Spain)
B. Zhang (China)
S. Zhou (China)

SUNDAY, APRIL 5, 2009
A Society Of B.S. (Bad Science)
By Sylvain Lamoureux
from thomaspainescorner
4/4/09

Over 5 billion people live on less than $10 a day on this planet but I am not one of them; so let us say that the rest are the rich and middle classes (assumed ‘middle class’ also). These numbers tell us that less than 20% of the world population controls the financial, political, military, information, manufacturing, food, distribution, ‘management’ and consumption of the world’s resources; some would argue that 1% rules the rest but I shall implicate all of ‘the middle class’ into this piece as they do not seem to be able to see beyond their ‘generation’.

Since 1970, real wages have remained stagnant or gone down. Two earner households have been created along with daycare and a ‘tying in’ of every family member to the ‘economics’ of the family. This has contributed to raising the overall stress levels of the family which, in turn, creates ‘blockages’ in communication for its members resulting in less than ideal learning conditions at a young age. There is no longer unconditional love, there is instead pulling your weight, getting a job and paying that rent. The cost of a ‘home’ was 50% of a single earner income, now it is 75% of a dual earner income. ‘Time’ is less spent with family and values are set by society as everyone goes to ‘work’.
Class has been ingrained, the disparities widened and all the while we seem so worried about the ‘appearance’ of things that the ‘facts’ wash away in the haze. As we think of ‘me’ and ‘mine’, our social ’safety nets’ get cut, waters get commoditized and a mindset of ‘if you ain’t working, you ain’t worth nothing’, seems to have overtaken society. “No one rides for free” and we will ‘pull ourselves out’ are echoed in unison with the belief that “if everyone thinks it, it must be right”.

Livelihoods based on jobs, make us dependent on the ’system’ and seemingly ‘competitive’ in nature. With virtually all aspects of life now having a price tag attached to it, those that seem to ‘get’, while seemingly working less than ‘me’, are essentially ’stealing’ my opportunities (think unions). Jobs are tied to ‘free market’ ideals and the competition ensues; “if I can do it for less, I will have a job”; “any job is better than no job”.

Defending the ideals of a monetary system with words like ‘laziness’, ‘jealousy’ and ‘incentive’, the laboured masses forever justifies the failed system, which holds them into servitude, and refuses to see ‘change’ as anything worthwhile but instead as something sinister to be feared.

‘Success’ has been tied to the ‘investment’ of ‘education’ and the ‘ego’ has been associated with society and its outward judgements. We are told to “find what you love and figure a way to make money from it” and we accept this and go forth, turning our ‘enjoyment’ into competition forever believing that the only thing of importance is to ‘take care of me and mine’ in the form of ’success’. This is compounded at the family level and competition divides siblings as each vie for that ’success’ marker that will make their parents ‘proud’.

The public has been convinced that being an entrepreneur is part of the dream; that it puts ‘me’ in control of ‘my’ life, that it takes away the ‘fears’ that occur in an employer/employee relationship. Defending the ‘dream’ as a ‘comfort zone’; ‘I like having a home’ or ‘I like fitting in’. Not wanting to ‘rock the boat’, they will find any excuse to keep from seeing deficiencies in their lives. They don’t want to be free; they just want to be free of discomfort and conflict.

Demanding solutions instead of problems and fighting thought and clarity as cynical and angry, all the while defending with ‘comparisons’ as a means of ‘justification’. Pride has replaced common sense by defending it with irrelevant excuses and fears that we echo as we try to focus on the ‘good’ of our current system and wanting to direct energies towards ‘fixing’ the shortcomings instead of rebuilding; rebuilding may affect ‘me’.

On TV, violence and crime on Cops and CSI type shows allow us to believe that there is ‘always someone to blame’. They enable us to identify the ’scum’ of the Earth; the criminals such as file sharers. We prefer to ‘lock em up and throw away the key’ or ‘fine them’ because they might ’steal my stuff’, rather than looking for the root causes of crime. That, ‘competition’ driven through the environment and having to ’survive’ may actually play a part in the creation of crime, is dismissed; ‘bad apples’ and ‘punishment’ are the only ways to deal with it. Getting used to the presence of ‘officers’ and to being ‘questioned’ while slowly imprisoning ourselves. Seeing the ’seedy’ side of life and being able to ‘identify’ its non-conformity; spurring the suspicion towards all non-conformists (’anyone could be a criminal’, ‘beware the loner’, ‘he was such a quiet man’; watch your own kids for signs).

We are told that ‘crime’ is opportunist but yet we live an opportunistic life ourselves. We jump at a ‘good deal’ or an ‘investment’ opportunity without thinking of who had to ‘lose’ in order to allow us this ‘deal’; another’s misfortune may just be our gain. We have learned to ‘accept’ and ‘adapt’ to this system while perpetuating it through to the next generation. The kids grow up with concepts like ‘you owe me’ or ‘criminals are bad people’, echoing the lies of society and making themselves a part of it. They are led to believe that one must not stray too far from the herd and that ‘hope’ and ‘love’ will make everything better.

The media constantly plays on our ‘hopes’ of ownership and our dreams of an ‘easy life’ and ’success’. It could happen to me through instant fame and glory by being an ‘idol’, being ‘discovered’, ‘working hard’ or ‘inventing’ something, and if that doesn’t work, there is always the lottery. The people try to ‘earn’ extra money by engaging in ‘legal’ activities such as gambling or speculation, all the while putting themselves further into the ‘negative’ for the system of ‘hope’ is designed to ‘lure’ for profit. The shame in ‘loss’ is so strong that it aids in further straining family relationships and communication.

9/11, a day of infamy and yet to be properly investigated, is accepted as resolved on the basis of ‘bad science’. The hope that ‘my government’ or other ‘Americans’ couldn’t be party to it, fuels the lies until they are accepted as truths. Mainstream media attacks the integrity, credibility and character of anyone that questions it with words such as ‘extremist’ or ‘radical’; the same words used to describe ‘terrorists’. Forgetting logic and scientific examination, the public simply ‘accepts’ the findings of the ‘official’ report and considers the case closed. Having only neuroses, fears, and emotions, we crave a haven of ’safety’ and take personally the questions which may implicate our elected officials or other ‘Americans’. The mind itself has gotten lazy; frustration and a sense of being over-whelmed occur when something is not ‘easy’ or ’straight forward’; the very sense of ‘learning’ becomes an attack on the ego.

There used to be a time when wisdom and knowledge were passed along and shared for the betterment of the community but it is all money now. We are all ‘competitors’ and the knowledge we hold may be tied to our livelihoods or to our families. We horde information, hoping to get an ‘advantage’ over others or to ’sell’ the ideas for our own gain. We save, budget, spend and invest, believing that we are building a ‘future’ for ourselves and our families. We acquire as much as we can and desire forever more; we see that money brings with it a sense of entitlement and we too wish to feel ‘entitled’.

Do not be afraid to learn of truths, to see deceptions and to feel despair even if logic seems to hurt your feelings. Admitting that the world is "expletive deleted" and that radical change is required is the first step towards real change. Being able to face the ‘growing’ pains of something new and not reverting back to the safety of the flawed, yet known is the challenge. Overcoming the importance of ‘me’ is monumental in this evolution for only humanity as a whole, can ever ‘hope’ to bring true justice for all and a life in balance with nature.


Sylvain Lamoureux is TPC’s assistant editor and IT director. Based in Montreal, he is a self-educated writer/activist who speaks English, French and some Spanish. He has lived in Mexico and volunteered in Africa for two years. He maintains two sites of his own, Things I Read Today and My Mind and the World.

source: Thomas Paine's Corner

http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/2009/04/...ad-science.html

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT "PEER-REVIEW"

Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.

Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.

Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "

BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year.

IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.

Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).

We say that this paper has the "imprimatur of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO...

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19780