Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl

I would suggest that the majority of ATS members are neither investigative journalists or professional investigators. Like me, they are regular people, with regular jobs and a wide range of expertise.

Is it for truthers to create plausible doubt to prompt a genuine impartial investigation? Consider this:

A woman disappears without trace and it is suggested to the police that the woman has run off with another man. The woman's husband is observed by a neighbor digging in the garden in the early hours and the neighbor reports this to the police. The police can either agree with the existing story, ignoring the tip-off, or investigate the garden for evidence of a body. We do not expect the neighbor to dig up body, arrest the husband and drop both off at the local court house with the appropriate paperwork.

While this study may or may not be properly peer reviewed (as is contended), does it create sufficient plausible in the establishment depiction of events? If the government had spent more on investigating 911 than on Clinton's sex life, then wouldn't this be considered to be an avenue of investigation?

If we all accepted the version of events as espoused by the government and Dr Jones had found a piece of a hijackers boxcutter, would not the FBI be interested in it, even now? Considering that 911 is (arguably) the biggest terrorist/criminal event in American history?

reply to post by wtc_wtf


So, I guess these "scientists" know more than the MIT studies, newspaper studies, UCLA studies, and experts around the world who investigated. When will you people just understand that a plane's fuel burns at 2000 degrees and doesn't need to melt the steel. JUST WEAKEN IT! That along with the 1000's of tons above it were all that were needed to make them fall.

reply to post by wtc_wtf


BTW, if YOU can tell these crashes were staged, don't you think the government has experts that KNOW how to tell and would have made them more believable?

But, more important, WHY does Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda ADMIT to doing it then? Are you such conspiracy theorists that you believe they are working for us? Why would Barack Obama not bust the truth then?

Originally posted by mithrawept

I would suggest that the majority of ATS members are neither investigative journalists or professional investigators. Like me, they are regular people, with regular jobs and a wide range of expertise.

Is it for truthers to create plausible doubt to prompt a genuine impartial investigation? Consider this:

A woman disappears without trace and it is suggested to the police that the woman has run off with another man. ... [SNIP] ... We do not expect the neighbor to dig up body, arrest the husband and drop both off at the local court house with the appropriate paperwork.

While this study may or may not be properly peer reviewed (as is contended), does it create sufficient plausible in the establishment depiction of events? If the government had spent more on investigating 911 than on Clinton's sex life, then wouldn't this be considered to be an avenue of investigation?

If we all accepted the version of events as espoused by the government and Dr Jones had found a piece of a hijackers boxcutter, would not the FBI be interested in it, even now? Considering that 911 is (arguably) the biggest terrorist/criminal event in American history?

You said it "the biggest terrorist/criminal event in American history." Thousands killed in a planned attack with subsequent accusations of treason. So the comparison of a neighbourhood suspected family murder is not really appropriate.

And a physics professor like Dr. Jones with no known experience with mega-project architecture, explosives, demolition, can't offer much more than one man's professional opinion. ATS members do claim expertise in being able to tell when one academic's conflicting opinion outweighs that of many with first hand knowledge of highly specialized specialized fields.


Thousands of experts weighed in on the unique conditions of thermodynamics and structural engineering in this singular event. Expectedly, quite a few hold dissenting opinions. But the vast majority weighed in on the now generally accepted explanation of steel losing it's supportive strength combined with extraordinary amounts of weight and stress at vulnerable junctures causing the collapses.

Many of the professional opinions come from outside the US and any governmental jurisdictions. I'd say impartial and objective investigations have been done, both institutionally and informally.

While I don't dismiss governmental foreknowledge, I think this particular avenue chosen by those wanting to get to the bottom of this - proving that thermite was used in a planned controlled demolition, is turning into another cul-de-sac.


Mike




[edit on 8-4-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
I think the US government and it's intelligence agencies are capable of terrible deeds.

Ya think?

But when you start accusing people and agencies of treason you need evidence not speculation and theories.

Well, let's see. How about if we start with FDR's advance knowledge of every detail of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Exact date, time and place, weeks or months in advance. EVERY Japanese code had been broken and EVERY transmission was intercepted. U.S. crypto-analysts were the best in the world. There's even compelling evidence that the attack was purposefully provoked by FDR and his top advisors in the "war department." (see the "McCollom Memo.") Then there's the Gulf of Tonkin non-event with LBJ quoted in NSA archives as saying, "those Navy boys were shooting at a bunch of flying fish!" How about Ruby Ridge? Waco? Oklahoma City? (where every newspaper, TV station, state and federal law enforcement agency -- even the governor of Oklahoma -- reported that "sophisticated explosives devices" were recovered from the Murrah Federal Building. Maybe that's why they set a land speed record in executing Timothy McVeigh. Then there's that pesky Operation Northwoods, which debunkers keep insisting was some sort of hallucinogenic fantasy. Ever look into the USS Liberty? TWA 800? Decades of US-backed dictators and atrocities in Central and South America? How about JFK, RFK, MLK and those famous WMDs in Iraq?

Should I continue or is that enough evidence for you?

Paraphrasing another ATS member, just for starters evidence of controlled demolition of the WTC buildings would require:

Naming anyone involve in the planning, providing dates, and places.

Naming anyone who supplied and installed explosives, detonation devices, the type and quantity specifics

A paper trail consisting of any combination of letters, emails, written notes, invoices, purchase orders, etc.

Testimony with corroborating evidence from anyone involved, witnessing or having reliable information.

Maybe that's the kind of evidence you'd require. But for the rest of us who aren't holding our breath for an investigative expose from the NY Times or 60 Minutes, the evidence is overwhelming and painfully obvious -- for those who've actually spent the time and effort to look for themselves.

Serious investigators spend months travelling to sites, interviewing dozens of witnesses and officials, reading through thousands of pages of documents and professional analysis, before drawing tentative conclusions.

Definitely not tentative. I spent six solid months investigating every aspect of 9/11, both official and unofficial. Just curious how much time you've spent?

Maybe what's called the Official version isn't the final word. But a lot of people from a lot of countries made their best effort to properly track the perpetrators and assemble evidence.

I think you mean higher-ups in the FBI and CIA blocked and impeded efforts by their own agents to properly track the perpetrators.

And speaking of perpetrators from foreign countries, sometimes I ask, "how many people were arrested on 9/11?" The usual answer is "none." Not quite:

Arutz Sheva News Service IsraelNationalNews.com 10-26-01

Five young Israelis are "on the verge of collapse," according to family members, as their incarceration in New York on charges relating to the Bin Laden attacks continues. They were arrested on Sept. 11, only hours after the World Trade Center attack, on charges of "plotting to blow up" a New York bridge. Katie Shmuel of the Galilee town of Yokne'am, says that her son Yaron is in "a very critical psychological situation," given that they are not allowed to have visitors and the difficult conditions in which they are being held. "The Israeli Consul-General in New York was allowed to visit only after asking several times and receiving a special permit," Katie told Arutz-7's Yosef Zalmanson today. "He was allowed to talk to them only in English, and only from behind a glass partition. The Consul told me that the boys are in a bad state and that they are being held under difficult conditions."

Going on 8 years we're all still waiting for the equally well documented and countering Unofficial version.

This statement alone tells me how much investigation you've done. You couldn't read half of everything that's been published in five years.

This book would be a good start, written by a theology professor who mostly offers information and asks questions without drawing conclusions. You'd be shocked to learn what you never knew and to discover that the "thousands of experts" consensus you believe exists isn't what you think.

Will you take my challenge and read this book?

I guarantee you'll spend a lot less time trying to defend the indefensible.


[edit on 8-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]

Originally posted by Nunny
But, more important, WHY does Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda ADMIT to doing it then?

Do you really believe that? This is a perfect example of how easy it is to brainwash people. Just keep repeating the same lies over and over and over...

Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks

September 17, 2001 Posted: 11:21 AM EDT (1521 GMT)

DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.

Asked Sunday if he believed bin Laden's denial, President Bush said, "No question he is the prime suspect. No question about that."

archives.cnn.com...

How about today?

FBI says it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

By Ed Haas

06/18/06 "Muckraker Report " - June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page) In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

[edit on 8-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]

This debate is really starting to remind me of Evolution VS Creationism.

Sciences PROVES the official story is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Science is OBSERVED not BELIEVED.

But no matter how much undeniable evidence piles up, no matter how many holes in the official story are exposed, and no matter how many experts explain these facts people continue to go...

"Well the Government/News/Corporations/Bible told us it was Arabs with box cutters"

We understand what the Government told you...but this discussion is not about what people told you happened this discussion is about science...and the proof is so blatantly obvious.

Originally posted by Jezus
This debate is really starting to remind me of Evolution VS Creationism.

Sciences PROVES the official story is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Science is OBSERVED not BELIEVED.

But no matter how much undeniable evidence piles up, no matter how many holes in the official story are exposed, and no matter how many experts explain these facts people continue to go...

"Well the Government/News/Corporations/Bible told us it was Arabs with box cutters"

We understand what the Government told you...but this discussion is not about what people told you happened this discussion is about science...and the proof is so blatantly obvious.

If the proof were obvious from the scientific standpoint, there would not be any debate.
The evidence of conspiracy is not undeniable; it is non-existent. What you are calling evidence is heresay, gut feelings, and extrapolation of what you think should have happened by applying your experiences to a situation that might not behave the same way, at all. A few expected the towers to fall over like large trees because that is what they were familiar with. Some watch building demolitions on youtube and think that because buildings collapse a certain way on planned demolition that they would collapse in a completely different or much slower fashion during unplpanned demolition.
There is no evidence of any conspiracy, only unsubstantiated claims of conspiracy.

[edit on 4/8/2009 by pteridine]

It seems obvious that some people are not even bothering to read this paper.

-- HIGHLIGHTS ON MY 1st READ OF THE PAPER --

"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 June
2007, Dr.
Steven Jones observed distinctive bi-layered chips,
with both a red and a gray layer, in a sample of the WTC
dust.
Initially, it was suspected these might be dried paint
chips, but after closer inspection and testing, it was shown
that this was not the case.
Further testing was then performed
on the red/gray chips in an attempt to ascertain their composition and properties.
The authors also obtained and examined
additional samples of WTC dust which had been collected
by independent observers on, or very soon after, 9/11.

All of the samples examined contained these very small,
peculiar red/gray chips.


All of the chips used in the study had a gray layer and a
red layer and were attracted by a magnet.


The chemical signatures found in the red layers
are also quite consistent, each showing the presence
of aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), iron (Fe) and oxygen (O), and
a significant carbon (C) peak as well.


In addition to the red/gray chips, many small spheres
have been found by our group in the WTC dust.
These contain
the same elements as the residue of thermite.


The red layer of the red/gray chips is most interesting in
that it contains aluminum, iron and oxygen components which are INTIMATELY MIXED AT A SCALE OF APPROXIMATELY 100
NANOMETERS (nm) OR LESS.
(emphasis mine)

The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically
all present in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds
of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows
intimate mixing.

Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm
across whereas the aluminum appears in thin platelike
structures.
The small size of the iron oxide particles
qualifies the material to be characterized as nanothermite
or super-thermite.


From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron
oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains
the ingredients of thermite.


As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts
vigorously at a temperature of approximately
430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching
fairly closely an independent observation on a known
super-thermite sample.
The low temperature of ignition
and the presence of iron oxide grains less than
120 nm show that the material is not conventional
thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C)
but very likely a form of super-thermite.


The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the
flame test have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C)
which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to
the original red material.
This chemical signature
strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids
produced by igniting commercial thermite, and
also matches the signatures of many of the microspheres
found in the WTC dust."


In a time of economic crisis with the additional fact that Obama is INCREASING our military adventures-- PLEASE repost/digg etc.. this is still not over.

Originally posted by pteridine
There is no evidence of any conspiracy, only unsubstantiated claims of conspiracy.

A statement that's right up there with, "When will you people just understand that a plane's fuel burns at 2000 degrees?", and "WHY does Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda ADMIT to doing it then?"

BTW, has the bad economy affected the dungeon confession extraction business?

Two words, Thermal Lance

Oh wait... three more - Chain of Custody

The report has not rules out the first and fails to establish the second.

thanks, have a nice day

The topic of the thread is based on a study that appeared in an internet open access journal. Most reputable scientists consider most of these journals as money making spam and that they are not interested in proper peer-review. The study is not worth the ink that was used to write it. Remember the Sokal affair? Junk science.

scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org...

How many times in this thread have we seen examples of the tired old tactic, "when you can't dispute the information, attack the source."

I'll take this group over the "scientists" at NIST who spent seven years trying to explain the collapse of WTC 7 and could only do so by inventing a new scientific principle they called "thermal expansion."

They could've saved seven years of effort by catching Larry "Pull It" Silverstein on PBS.



[edit on 8-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]

Originally posted by pteridine
The evidence of conspiracy is not undeniable; it is non-existent.

undeniable VS non-existent

Those two descriptions of the situation are so completely contradictory that one of us must be making a completely absurd, unsubstantiated, and asinine statement.

The evidence is non-existent?

Maybe in your mind it is non-existent because you have not analyzed any of it but just putting your hands over your ears and saying, "That's not evidence!" is not much of a point of view.

Originally posted by mmiichael


I think the US government and it's intelligence agencies are capable of terrible deeds.

Are any of those terrible deeds false flag attacks?

But when you start accusing people and agencies of treason you need evidence not speculation and theories.

When you start invading a nation because some cave dweller supposedly committed a terrorist attack, you should have evidence as well.

Paraphrasing another ATS member, just for starters evidence of controlled demolition of the WTC buildings would require:

Naming anyone involve in the planning, providing dates, and places.

This is a failsafe for 911 "critics" so you can ignore the physical evidence of CD, whether or not I can provide planning, dates and places doesn't change the physical impossibility of a gravity driven collapse demolishing steel and concrete in mid air, it doesn't change the physical impossibility of a simple fire bringing down a steel building in it's own footprint.

Naming anyone who supplied and installed explosives, detonation devices, the type and quantity specifics.

That would be nice, but we both know 911 truth "critics" would never accept evidence that was not spoon feed to them by the MSN, you never did it before and you suddenly start tomorrow.

A paper trail consisting of any combination of letters, emails, written notes, invoices, purchase orders, etc.

Testimony with corroborating evidence from anyone involved, witnessing or having reliable information.

We know how much credence you give whist blowers.

Berry Jennings, Lee Hamition, Norman Minetan... Yeah

Playing armchair James Bond uncovering world destruction plots as exposed by talk radio show hosts and their DVDs, amateurish websites, and Youtube analysis has become a popular sport.

Apparently, it is also popular sport for debunk- er, "911 truth critics" to pretend to be receptive to the truth when you know good and dam well that you will side with conventional wisdom(aka, the "historical account") in perpetuity.

Serious investigators spend months travelling to sites, interviewing dozens of witnesses and officials, reading through thousands of pages of documents and professional analysis, before drawing tentative conclusions.

Did any of you serious OS investigators come across the tape of Dick Cheney stopping NORAD from intercepting a plane?

Maybe what's called the Official version isn't the final word. But a lot of people from a lot of countries made their best effort to properly track the perpetrators and assemble evidence.

They did a poor job considering the evidence that was left out. The insider trading, destruction of the crime scene, warnings from other countries about 911 etc..


Going on 8 years we're all still waiting for the equally well documented and countering Unofficial version.

Debunkers are doing no such thing, your job is to defend conventional wisdom. Period, it doesn't matter how ridiculous, how absurd, how preposterous the OS is, you will do it and will do it with the confidence that you are 100% right 100% of the time, because according to your wold view, the OS is always right.

Stop asking for evidence you decided a priori is non existent.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
How many times in this thread have we seen examples of the tired old tactic, "when you can't dispute the information, attack the source."

I'll take this group over the "scientists" at NIST who spent seven years trying to explain the collapse of WTC 7 and could only do so by inventing a new scientific principle they called "thermal expansion."

They could've saved seven years of effort by catching Larry "Pull It" Silverstein on PBS.



[edit on 8-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]

The NIST report was prepared by scientists and engineers, not a bunch of psuedoscientific spammers. Anyone who gives credence to Bentham has obviously not read the links I provided. They are not recognized by reputable scientists. PERIOD. What is so wrong about attacking the source if it`s just B.S.?

[edit on 8-4-2009 by the_eighth_tower]

[edit on 8-4-2009 by the_eighth_tower]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
How many times in this thread have we seen examples of the tired old tactic, "when you can't dispute the information, attack the source."

I'll take this group over the "scientists" at NIST who spent seven years trying to explain the collapse of WTC 7 and could only do so by inventing a new scientific principle called "thermal expansion."

[edit on 8-4-2009 by GoldenFleece]

This group of scientists is guilty of bad science at best and fraud at worst. There are no components of super-therm*te. There is no barium nitrate or sulfur. The particles are not uniform in size and have a broad distribution of sizes and shapes. The so-called analysis by comparison of solvent swelling and dissolution characteristics with unknown paint samples does not show that the sample was not a paint or coating of some sort. In fact, etching and partial dissolution by MEK coupled with the broad distribution in particle sizes strongly suggests a cured paint or coating. Thermal analysis in an air stream or heating with a torch in air shows only that metals oxidize in air and does not show thermitic reactions of any sort.

The paper is misleading, poorly done, unscientific, and unconvincing for anyone with a technical background. Deny what you will but this paper makes no case for therm*te of any kind.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by pteridine
The evidence of conspiracy is not undeniable; it is non-existent.

undeniable VS non-existent

Those two descriptions of the situation are so completely contradictory that one of us must be making a completely absurd, unsubstantiated, and asinine statement.

The evidence is non-existent?

Maybe in your mind it is non-existent because you have not analyzed any of it but just putting your hands over your ears and saying, "That's not evidence!" is not much of a point of view.

What you call "evidence" isn't evidence, it is heresay based on feelings.

The evidence of conspiracy is not undeniable; it is non-existent.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

You couldn't read half of everything that's been published in five years.

[ New-Pearl-Harbor-Revisited-Cover-Up ]

This book would be a good start, written by a theology professor who mostly offers information and asks questions without drawing conclusions. You'd be shocked to learn what you never knew and to discover that the "thousands of experts" consensus you believe exists isn't what you think.

Will you take my challenge and read this book?

I guarantee you'll spend a lot less time trying to defend the indefensible.

Thanks for the follow-up. Sorry I only highlighted this section.

Yes, I have read Griffin and find his arguments compelling. But only as a layman in areas I claim little knowledge like thermodynamics. If you accept his selected closed context sources he's very convincing.

I have also read more authoritative scientifically grounded works. Few in the scientific community have bothered to question people like Griffin.

One I highly recommend that's online is by Ryan Mackey

911guide.googlepages.com...


"On Debunking 9/11 Debunking

Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism
of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation"


It's a useful learning experience comparing the science of a pastor like Griffin with that of a full-time scientist.


from the introduction:

"Ryan Mackey is a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, specializing in vehicle autonomy and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft. He is a graduate of the University of California, Santa Cruz and the Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories at the California Institute of Technology (GALCIT). He has authored sixteen NASA Tech Briefs and Technical Reports, and received two United States Patents for his original research. He has contributed to numerous projects including the Joint Strike Fighter, NASA’s New Millennium Program and Project Constellation. "


and excerpting from Mackey's Conclusions:

" In this review, we have begun with Dr. Griffin’s critique of the NIST Report of the World Trade Center Disaster, contained in Chapter 3 of his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking. We have examined his claims and his methods, expanded to consider the NIST Report ourselves, and finally discussed the scientific method as a whole. Our findings are as follows:

1. A sequential analysis of Dr. Griffin’s claims reveals that, without exception, his claims are unfounded. Sources of error in his claims include (a) quotes taken out of context, (b) reliance on statements from non-experts, (c) reliance on flawed scientific reasoning produced by others in the Truth Movement, (d) incorrect and incomplete reading of the NIST Report itself, and in rare cases (e) fabrication of factual claims. Taken in total, Dr. Griffin fails to provide a single legitimate complaint about the NIST Report anywhere in his new book.

2. Careful analysis of Dr. Griffin’s claims produces no coherent alternate hypothesis. Dr. Griffin outlines two seemingly incompatible ideas – those of explosives destroying the structures, and incendiaries merely weakening them to collapse – but upon review, his claims actually require both effects simultaneously. The amount of explosives and incendiaries required by Dr. Griffin is implausibly large, totaling roughly 60 tons of explosives alone at minimum per tower, if we have understood his vague implications correctly. This analysis is severely hampered by Dr. Griffin’s refusal, either here or in any of his other writings, to clearly articulate his hypothesis, if indeed he has one.

3. Comparison of Dr. Griffin’s approach to the Scientific Method reveals substantial and irreconcilable deviations. These include the failure to articulate a hypothesis, persistent Arguments from Ignorance and Incredulity, total reliance upon other researchers who have yet to produce a single peer-reviewed result and whose work is easily falsified, rejection of reviewed and verifiable results from genuine experts, and simple factual error in his presentation. In contrast, Dr. Griffin’s method is found to be entirely consistent with typical characteristics of pseudoscience.

4. The NIST Report itself bears up well in comparison to the Scientific Method, as it provides a concise and quantified hypothesis, is supported by evidence as well as experiments, draws upon a large body of researchers and independent validation, and has been supported in many parts by peer-reviewed papers and others still in press.

5. A brief review of current investigations reveals a considerable body of legitimate criticism and follow-up on the NIST Report taking place in the scientific community, contrary to Dr. Griffin’s assertions that the NIST Report is nothing more than an element of an ongoing cover-up. Equally important and revealing is the fact that none of these critiques suggests that explosives were used, or that the Towers would not be expected to collapse after the impact and fires alone.

6. There are now several attempted rebuttals to this whitepaper, all of them from the Truth Movement, and none from scientists or readers without such affiliation. A careful examination of these responses reveals comprehensive errors in fact and reasoning, including incomplete or incorrect understanding of the NIST Report, unfamiliarity with physical laws and engineering principles, and unrealistic models of structures and dynamics that are biased strongly towards confirmation of their proponents’ assertions. In contrast, research continues among leading professional and academic institutions, and without exception, these new published results further contradict claims of the Truth Movement.

None of these findings should come as a surprise. In arguing against the NIST hypothesis, Dr. Griffin is automatically at a disadvantage, simply because there is no body of scientific work supporting his position, and no expectation for one in the future. In the words of Popular Mechanics:

Some critics claim that we "cherry-picked" sources who would be favorable to our "agenda." The fact is, for each question we studied, we simply approached the top experts in that particular field. The irony is that we were unable to find anyone with any degree of authority, in the public or private sector—first responders or university professors, engineers or flight instructors—who agreed with the claims made by 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

While Dr. Griffin will immediately retort that there are experts supporting his position, such as current and former University professors, his reliance on such experts is extremely unstable, being limited to only a few individuals, all of whom are major figures in the Truth Movement itself and all of whom can be easily shown to be in error. More importantly, not even these alleged experts have produced any result worthy of review, let alone anything reviewed and accepted, that supports Dr. Griffin’s conclusions. Because the evidence is and will forseeably remain overwhelmingly contrary to Dr. Griffin, it is incumbent upon him to uphold the highest standards of science if he wishes to investigate further. As we have seen, thus far his efforts fall well below the most basic principles of the scientific method. Until this is rectified, there is no reason to take his conclusions seriously. "


Read through the whole 300 page report - just on one section of one of Griffin's books - then report back.


Mike










[edit on 8-4-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by pteridine

Which explanation sounds more credible -- NIST's "new phenomenon" called "thermal expansion" (they somehow forgot to mention sulfur and a severe high-temperature corrosion attack on the steel that FEMA found but couldn't explain) or thermite that caused pools of molten steel and fires that burned for three months? (also not mentioned.)

As federal agency declares 'new phenomenon' downed WTC 7, activists cry foul
Stephen C. Webster
Published: Thursday August 21, 2008

According to a federal agency report released Thursday, a "new phenomenon" known as thermal expansion was directly responsible for the mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.

This study, posed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology -- a federal scientific agency which promotes technical industrial standards -- marks the first 'official' government theory on the collapse.

The building's demise occurred some seven hours after the twin towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, and has been the source of numerous conspiracy theories key to the "9/11 Truth" movement, most of which argue that the symmetrical, seven-second collapse was brought about by a controlled demolition.

Dr. Shyam Sunder, director of Institute's building and fire research laboratory, oversaw the government's three-year research efforts. The report aims to disprove the controlled demolition argument.

However, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, doesn't believe a word of the theory.

His group, which has swelled to over 400 architectural and engineering professionals, immediately responded to the Institute's claim in a press conference.

"Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack," said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. "Steel doesn't begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused."

"There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through," Gage added during the press conference. His group asserts that thermite, a steel cutting agent, was used to bring the building down.

Dr. Sunder disagreed.

"We conducted the study without bias, without interference from anyone," said Dr. Sunder. "We have only one single-minded goal in this effort."

While the Institute said it considered the possibility of a controlled demolition taking place at WTC 7, the notion was dismissed due to the absence of any recordings of an explosion sound.

Thermite, however, does not make an explosion sound. And while this was raised to Dr. Sunder in the media's Q&A session, he dismissed it as impossible.

"FEMA found it," said Gage. "Dr. Steven Jones found it, in the dust that landed in the entire area of lower Manhattan. And he finds it in the chunks of previously molten metal [from the towers]."

Specifically, in Appendix C of its World Trade Center Building Performance Study, FEMA claimed:

"Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified."

Yet, no study of the mysterious sulfur or melted steel was included in the NIST report.