Would a new 9/11 investigation really accomplish anything?

reply to post by jthomas

The terrorist-instigated collapse of the World
Trade Center (WTC) towers in New York City
on 11 September 2001;the resultant fires that
burned at the excavation site for three months
afterward;and subsequent site-remediation
activities released dust,debris,and a wide
variety of particle-associated contaminants
to the surrounding urban environment.
Although there is a general understanding
of fine-particle and con-
taminant transport and
accumulation in coastal
areas such as the Hudson
River estuary,determining
the spatial and temporal
variations in particle and
contaminant dynamics
can be difficult,since
fine-particle transport usually involves numer-
ous short-term episodes of deposition and
resuspension,and because intense,short-term
events (storms and catastrophes) are often
more important than those that occur during
normalflow conditions [Olsen et al.,1984;
Olsen et al.,1993;Bopp et al.,1998;Woodruff et
al.,2001].
One of the tools available for elucidating
the fate of fine particles and contaminants in
estuarine systems is through the measurement
of a suite of geochemical tracers that have
known sources and histories of input into the
system.
Using a multi-tracer approach,a textural/
geochemical fingerprint was characterized,
and a measurable event horizon was docu-
mented in New York Harbor (NYH) sediments
for the WTC catastrophe.Samples of ash and
debris were collected near Ground Zero
(approximately one week after the collapse),
and sediment cores were collected in two
inactive NYH slips (Pier 32 and Pier 40) along
the lower west side of Manhattan on 12 October
2001.These samples were analyzedusing
radioisotopic,bulk-elemental,and textural
techniques.
The legacy of the attack on the WTC is
recorded in NYH sedimentsas a stratigraphic
layer containing elevated concentrations of
several elements,including Ca,S,Sr,Cu,and
Zn.Textural and analytical results indicate that
the deposition of WTC ash (via atmospheric
input or urban runoff) could account for all
of these elevated elemental concentrations.
This “geochemical fingerprint”
provides a potential tool for
assessing the environmental
and health impacts of the
WTCcatastrophe,and for
quantifying particle and con-
taminant dynamics in the
Lower Hudson River estuary.
Individual particles in the
ash and sediment samples were analyzed for
size,texture,and composition using a
scanning electron microscope(SEM)
equipped with an energy-dispersive X-ray
analysis system (EDS).The bulk elemental
compositions of these sampleswere
determined by polarized energy-dispersive X-ray
fluorescence (EDXRF),and
87
Sr/
86
Sr isotopic
ratios were determined at the USGS Isotope
Laboratory in Menlo Park,California,by Ther-
mal Ionization Mass Spectrometry (TIMS).
Sediment cores (38–48 cm in length) were
collected in areas of suspected particle focus-
ing and accumulation [Olsen et al.,1993],
which were verified in this study by gamma-
spectrometric measurements of the vertical
sediment distribution of naturally occurring
7
Be (t
1/2 = 53.2 d) and other radionuclides.
Textural,Chemical Analysis of WTC Ash
and Hudson River Sediments
The textural and chemical signature of the
WTC terrorist attack is illustrated in a photo-
mosaic of backscatter SEM photomicrographs
(BSE) and energy dispersive spectroscopy
(EDS) element maps (Figure 1).The BSE pho-
tomicrograph in Figure 1A shows representa-
tive textures seen in ash/debris collected near
Ground Zero.Numerous bundles of fibers and
individual rods 40–200 micrometersin length
are apparent in the image.This samplewas ele-
ment-mapped using EDS,and the resultsfor Si
and Ca are also shown (Figure 1A).It is apparent
from the EDS X-ray element mappingthat there
are two chemically distinct rod-like features
(Si-rich and Ca-rich) in both the ash and sedi-
ment samples (Figure 1,A-C).The Si-rich rods
are consistent with a fiberglass parent material,
while the Ca-rich fibers likely originate from
gypsum (CaSO4) contained within drywall
building materials.Additional SEM-EDS element
map images (not shown here for brevity) showed
that Ca and S co-map,further substantiating a
gypsum-like parent material,while the prominent
Si-rich rods are relatively Ca-poor.
The fibrous nature of the ash and debris has
created concerns about potentially adverse
health effects.Since the majority of the parti-
cles observed in this study are relatively large
(>80 μm),they would typically be trapped in
the nasal passages and upper respiratory tract
rather than enter the lungs,therefore posing
less of a human health threat [WHO,1997].
However,the depth of penetration of a fiber
(defined as a particle with an aspect ratio,or
length versus diameter of = ≥3:1)into the
lung depends mainly on its diameter,not its
length.As a consequence,fibers as long as
100 μm have been found in the pulmonary
spaces of the respiratory system [WHO,1999].
The ash fibers seen in Figure 1A clearly have
aspect ratios greater than three,and should
be evaluated for their respiratory penetration
capability and potential human health impact.
In addition to the use of textural criteria to
identify WTC-derived materials,bulk elemental
analysis (by EDXRF) established that the ash
material contains substantial amounts of Ca
(19 wt%),S (6 wt%),Sr (635 μg/g),Zn (1,500
μg/g),and Cu (140 μg/g).The relatively high
concentrations of Ca,S,and Sr are consistent
with gypsum,which typically has a distinct
Ca/Sr weight ratio of approximately 230,as the
parent material.A
87
Sr/
86
Sr ratio of 0.7088(n=2)
coupled with a Ca/Sr (weight ratio) of 260–300
measured in the ash also suggests that
approximately 70% of the ash material is gyp-
sum,presumably from drywall used in WTC
construction.
Establishing the
7
Be Stratigraphic Horizon
To link the deposition of the WTC ash to the
sedimentary record,the vertical distribution
of short-lived
7
Be was measured in NYH
sediments.Like other atmospherically-derived
WTC Geochemical Fingerprint
Recorded in New York Harbor
Sediments
PAGES 21,24–25
““The WTC ‘geochemical
fingerprint’provides a
potential tool for assess-
ing the environmental
and health impacts of
the catastrophe.””
BYSARAHD.OKTAY,DANIELJ.BRABANDER,
JOSEPHP.SMITH,JOHNKADA,THOMASBULLEN,
ANDCURTISR.OLSEN

the link
www.wellesley.edu...(EOS)

Is this the article you wrote of?

Second line

reply to post by jthomas

The "explosive paint chip" claim has been debunked pretty well. Perhaps you don't yet know that. It came from "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", The Open Chemical Physics Journal, www.bentham-open.org...

The claim has been challenged here: /c438f3 and here:

Please provide a link for a peer-reviewed refutation of Niels Harrit's paper. Considering the attention it has received in the worldwide academic community, this should be a simple task if it has been debunked, as you say.

You're going to have to do MUCH better than linking to a random internet forum and quoting a few dubious accusations.

Originally posted by jthomas
An "explosive" sound is not necessarily from explosives. You do know that, I trust. Since no evidence of "explosives" was ever found anywhere in or around the WTC towers, the sounds were not from explosives.

Why do you keep pretending the evidence doesn't eixst?

Originally posted by jthomas
Explosions of fuel tanks, oil refineries, propane tanks are not evidence of explosives.

You are making assumptions based on your own speculation instead of dealing with the evidence.

This is called rationalization...and it is a symptom of someone in denial.

You are starting with the conclusion that there were no explosives and working backwards...

You repeatedly ask for evidence and pretend it doesn't exist when it is repeatedly presented to you.

Are you for real? Why do you keep going in circles?

Originally posted by jthomas
Since no evidence of "explosives" was ever found anywhere in or around the WTC towers, the sounds were not from explosives.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that no investigation looked for explosives residues or other evidence to begin with?

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the explosions themselves are evidence of explosives, even if not conclusive proof?

Please don't respond with rhetorical questions. Explain how you keep ignoring these facts over and over and over.

Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by jthomas

 

The "explosive paint chip" claim has been debunked pretty well. Perhaps you don't yet know that. It came from "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", The Open Chemical Physics Journal, www.bentham-open.org...

The claim has been challenged here: /c438f3 and here:

Please provide a link for a peer-reviewed refutation of Niels Harrit's paper. Considering the attention it has received in the worldwide academic community, this should be a simple task if it has been debunked, as you say.

Sorry, you said Harrit's paper was peer reviewed by whom?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
Since no evidence of "explosives" was ever found anywhere in or around the WTC towers, the sounds were not from explosives.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that no investigation looked for explosives residues or other evidence to begin with?

Just announced today to help you out:

Paul J. Lioy Writes Book on Dust in the Aftermath of September 11 and Homeland Security.

March 25, 2010
by Terri Guess, UMDNJ

NEW BRUNSWICK, N. J.— Paul J. Lioy, professor and vice chair of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson, Medical School, offers an analysis and interpretation for general audiences of the science of dust particles, smoke and debris that emanated from the collapse of the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center in his new book DUST: The Inside Story of its Role in the September 11th Aftermath.

news.rutgers.edu...

Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC, 11 September 2001

Paul J. Lioy,1,2 Clifford P. Weisel,1,2 James R. Millette,3 Steven Eienreich,1,4 Daniel Vallero,5 John Offenberg,4 Brian Buckley,1 Barbara Turpin,1,4 Mianhua Zhong,6 Mitchell D. Cohen,6 Colette Prophete,6 Ill Yang,1 Robert Stiles,1 Glen Chee,6 Willie Johnson,1 Robert Porcja,1,4 Shahnaz Alimokhtari,1 Robert C. Hale,7 Charles Weschler,1 and Lung Chi Chen6,1

Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute of New Jersey, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA; 2Department of Environmental and Community Medicine, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA; 3MVA, Norcross, Georgia; 4Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA; 5National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA; 6Nelson Institute of Environmental Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; 7Department of Environmental Sciences, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester, Virginia, USA

"To begin assessing the exposure to dust and smoke among the residential and commuter population during the first few days,samples of particles that initially settled in downtown NYC were taken from three undisturbed protected locations to the east of the WTC site. Two samples were taken on day 5 (16 September 2001) and the third sample was taken on day 6 (17 September 2001) after the terrorist attack. The purposes for collecting the samples were a) to determine the chemical and physical characteristics of the material that was present in the dust and smoke that settled from the initial plume, and b) to determine the absence or presence of contaminants that could affect acute or long-term human health by inhalation or ingestion."

ehp.niehs.nih.gov...

reply to post by jthomas


You think you're slick huh? Again you bring up dust and air samples as if they're equivalent to testing the steel itself for explosive residues, which no one did. Nope. Not the same.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

You think you're slick huh? Again you bring up dust and air samples as if they're equivalent to testing the steel itself for explosive residues, which no one did. Nope. Not the same.

Are you qualified to tell professionals how to test for chemical components?

I don't think so.

Your claim is a classic case of claiming something wasn't done that should have been done without providing a stitch of evidence why.

I know how that works. It is a fundamental tactic of the 9/11 Truth Movement to continue to avoid dealing with the evidence it cannot refute, in this case that there is no evidence of explosives.

You should really just admit that you cannot produce positive evidence of any explosives used.

Your claim is a classic case of claiming something wasn't done that should have been done without providing a stitch of evidence why.

I know how that works. It is a fundamental tactic of the 9/11 Truth Movement to continue to avoid dealing with the evidence it cannot refute, in this case that there is no evidence of explosives.

You should really just admit that you cannot produce positive evidence of any explosives used.

What is your EVIDENCE that an airliner weighing less than 200 tons can totally destroy a skyscraper weighing more than 400,000 tons. And yet we aren't told the tons of stees and tons of concrete that were on each level of the towers in EIGHT YEARS? Didn't they have to figure that out to designe the buildings to make them withstand 150 mph winds?

So you need PROOF that something other than planes did it but you don't need proof THAT PLANES COULD DO IT?

How does physics work in YOUR UNIVERSE?

www.youtube.com...

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Your claim is a classic case of claiming something wasn't done that should have been done without providing a stitch of evidence why.

I know how that works. It is a fundamental tactic of the 9/11 Truth Movement to continue to avoid dealing with the evidence it cannot refute, in this case that there is no evidence of explosives.

You should really just admit that you cannot produce positive evidence of any explosives used.

What is your EVIDENCE that an airliner weighing less than 200 tons can totally destroy a skyscraper weighing more than 400,000 tons.

Feel free to present any positive evidence for explosives that you have AND your evidence that the report on the dust to which I linked is invalid, please.

Originally posted by jthomas
Feel free to present any positive evidence for explosives that you have

The best evidence for explosives is that no one has proved what was observed is physically possible without explosives or some other unknown variable.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
Feel free to present any positive evidence for explosives that you have

The best evidence for explosives is that no one has proved what was observed is physically possible without explosives or some other unknown variable.

That leaves you in a small minority.

Originally posted by jthomas
Are you qualified to tell professionals how to test for chemical components?

They would tell you themselves the point of their study was NOT to look for explosives residues.


If you want to talk about burdens of proof, I asked you two questions earlier in this thread which you never felt it was your responsibility to answer, to go on believing what you do without any evidence whatsoever.

It was never my job to do any investigation. It's just my job to point out to you that none was done in the first place and you can't even answer simple questions about many infamous things that happened that day.

Originally posted by bsbray11

It was never my job to do any investigation. It's just my job to point out to you that none was done in the first place and you can't even answer simple questions about many infamous things that happened that day.

I can simply point out that an investigation was done, no evidence for explosives was found, and no refutation of that investigation has ever surfaced.

Now, just what do you intend to do about it?

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11

It was never my job to do any investigation. It's just my job to point out to you that none was done in the first place and you can't even answer simple questions about many infamous things that happened that day.

I can simply point out that an investigation was done, no evidence for explosives was found, and no refutation of that investigation has ever surfaced.

Now, just what do you intend to do about it?

I love watching things just spin around in circles over and over and over and over and over.

originally posted by bsbray
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that no investigation looked for explosives residues or other evidence to begin with?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by jthomas

Now, just what do you intend to do about it?

I love watching things just spin around in circles over and over and over and over and over.

I think it's odd that after 8 1/2 years we're still reminding people that no one has to do anything accept those making the claims that there were "explosive demolitions."

If those people cannot produce any positive evidence for their claims, I fail to see what anyone else has to do about it.

What do you intend to do, for instance?

reply to post by jthomas


I think it is odd that after all this time you still do not understand the concept of where the burden of proof lies.

You are doing the exact same thing you are complaining about. You say people that say there were explosives need to prove it. I agree.

People that suspect explosives do not need to prove anything.

You keep claiming that there were no explosives. Why do you not need to prove your claim? Because it is yours?

You know there was no testing done so you know there would be nothing found. Guess what. When people find out they have cancer, it did not just appear the moment it was looked for. It is just not found if it is not looked for, that does not prove it does not exist.

Most important, along with a new investigation someone should have the authority to make arrests....to arrest everyone and anyone.

And it will also help to have a honest judge and jury.



[edit on 27-3-2010 by zatara]

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by jthomas

 

I think it is odd that after all this time you still do not understand the concept of where the burden of proof lies.

I understand it clearly, thank you.

You are doing the exact same thing you are complaining about. You say people that say there were explosives need to prove it. I agree.

Thank you.

People that suspect explosives do not need to prove anything.

If they say there needs to be a new investigation, then they're going to have to convince the right people of the validity of there "suspicions." I need not do anything, and neither does anyone else.

You keep claiming that there were no explosives. Why do you not need to prove your claim? Because it is yours?

Your representation is incorrect. I am clear that no positive evidence of explosives has been found in any investigation.

You know there was no testing done so you know there would be nothing found.

I know that testing was done and provided the link. Some here claim the methodology of the testing was not valid but as yet have failed to demonstrate why and how. Until and unless they can do so, I have no reason to accept that claim.

Guess what. When people find out they have cancer, it did not just appear the moment it was looked for. It is just not found if it is not looked for, that does not prove it does not exist.

As I said, those claiming there were explosives have to produce positive evidence for explosives. Those who claim that the methodology of the tests that were done are invalid have to demonstrate why and how.

Neither has been done.

Originally posted by jthomas
Your representation is incorrect. I am clear that no positive evidence of explosives has been found in any investigation.

Maybe becasue no tests were done for explosives by NIST, as stated in thier reports.

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