Changes in the last year

reply to post by exponent

Remember you are impeaching him on the basis of acquiescence, not factual distortion.

We are not impeaching anyone. This is not a court of law. We are not trying to prove anything.

All that I am doing is saying that someone who to all appearances was willing to allow a study that he was co-author of to be quashed on the basis of political disapproval.

No, we don't know the specifics, but stop pretending it is relevant, because it is not.

The only thing that is relevant is that he failed to disclose this piece of information which can lead a reasonable person to suspect (not prove or know without a doubt, but suspect) that he was willing to put politics before science in certain circumstances. Saying he is independent in this context and in relation to the specific study he is rebutting is a gross distortion of fact.

There is no benefit of the doubt in science. You usually don't get second chances if you get studies pulled from journals because of fraud. Again, I am not accusing him of fraud, but the duty to convince is on him.

Starting out with this in your record in this context, whatever the actual facts of the matter immediately raises questions about your willingness to put political convenience before facts. Not disclosing it says that you you are either trying to hide it or don't think it is important, I don't know which is worse.

Then the actual content of the study omits key tests and draws sloppy conclusions? Any guesses as to why?

There is no benefit of the doubt in science. There is only trust, or lack thereof.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
We are not impeaching anyone. This is not a court of law. We are not trying to prove anything.

All that I am doing is saying that someone who to all appearances was willing to allow a study that he was co-author of to be quashed on the basis of political disapproval.

No, we don't know the specifics, but stop pretending it is relevant, because it is not.

The only thing that is relevant is that he failed to disclose this piece of information which can lead a reasonable person to suspect (not prove or know without a doubt, but suspect) that he was willing to put politics before science in certain circumstances. Saying he is independent in this context and in relation to the specific study he is rebutting is a gross distortion of fact.

You see you're just ploughing ahead with the same accusations, despite the fact that

• His name, previous employers and research history seems to have been published from the start
  
• There's no evidence he was even aware of the posting of the report, never mind its removal
  
• There's no evidence of any falsification of work or political intrigue, indeed the report was damning to the EPA at the time
  
• There's no evidence of any outstanding connection to the EPA in any way
  
• There's no evidence that he would want to cover up a controlled demolition + 3000 murders

These are all important points, and I feel either we have to agree on some of them and dilute your fairly aggressive indictment of him or disagree entirely.

I can't tell whether you're expressing this rather vehement bias consciously or unconsciously, but imagine applying these standards to every single researcher. A single removal of a single paper with no other evidence of any kind is apparently enough to dismiss rigorous work in favour of a frankly insane counter theory with absolutely no supporting evidence of any kind.

It's not logical, and I hope you can see it either as you read this post, or after some contemplation.

PS. No matter what, you've still presented an emphatically argued and clearly emoted issue here, and despite my disagreement this is the best discussion I've had on a truther site in a long time. Thanks again.

reply to post by exponent

PS. Please, no bickering, if you want to insult the truth movement please don't bother posting just that. I really want to have a dialogue about what has changed, not what has stayed the same.

So posting insults only is a no no, but insults with something else is ok?

Originally posted by maxella1
So posting insults only is a no no, but insults with something else is ok?

Sure, as long as someone posts actual content I don't mind. Notice that neither of us have just posted any content, and that we are now bickering over definitions. Exactly what i don't want.

Surely there must be more that's changed in the last year, literally nothing of consequence has been posted and the most work seems to have been done on the 'debunker' side.

reply to post by exponent

His name, previous employers and research history seems to have been published from the start

The specific connection needs to be disclosed by the author. "It's on the internet" is not a valid defense.

There's no evidence he was even aware of the posting of the report, never mind its removal

He was a co-author on it.

There is no reason to believe he was not informed of its posting as a co-author. Any reasonable person co-authoring a report would expect to be notified of major occurrences in its publication or would a the minimum follow it up.

Why are you so eager to give him the benefit of the doubt on this. It is completely unreasonable to think that he was unaware absent a statement from the author probably with whoever did post it following up as well. It is not a matter of me proving anything

There's no evidence of any falsification of work or political intrigue, indeed the report was damning to the EPA at the time

So you think the yanking of the paper on the same day as strong contrary political statement surfaced was an accident?

I did explicitly say "lie by of omission" though, not falsification of evidence.

There's no evidence of any outstanding connection to the EPA in any way

Except that to all appearances his publication was influenced by the same political forces as what influenced the EPA to varnish the truth about the air-quality.

There's no evidence that he would want to cover up a controlled demolition + 3000 murders

There is pretty convincing evidence that he is not prepared to say anything that may not be politically expedient, or at least that is willing to allow political expedience overshadow hard science.

That is the only thing that is relevant.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Look, if you want to be credulous about it, be my guest.

All I am saying is that my standards of proof is a bit higher than yours and involves actual asking question about the possible motivation of the researchers and evidence of such in their methods and past work.

There is nothing unusual about following this route in science and broader academia. Only a fool takes every article in a journal at face value, never mind "science" articles news-papers.

Look, if you want to be credulous about it, be my guest.

All I am saying is that my standards of proof is a bit higher than yours and involves actual asking question about the possible motivation of the researchers and evidence of such in their methods and past work.

There is nothing unusual about following this route in science and broader academia. Only a fool takes every article in a journal at face value, never mind "science" articles news-papers.

I agree that it seems we're never going to agree on the situation with his paper, and I think that what you say here is completely fair. However, I worry that you don't apply this standard equally, this is why I keep asking questions about Steven Jones. I feel that much stronger criticisms can be levied against him, but I infer from your responses that you don't think that these criticisms don't apply.

As far as I'm concerned, here's the situation with his research:

• One potentially positive test but with a hasty conclusion
  
• Promises of further diagnostic tests and independent research which have now been explicitly abandoned
  
• One video of 'ignition' which shows some burning but does not compare to similar tests
  
• One failed repetition of the burning effect and a lack of confirmation of any other reaction results
  
• One analysis indicating that the substance does not contain thermite requirements and closely matches paints known to be in the towers

Have I mischaracterised this, or would you say this is an accurate summary?

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
So posting insults only is a no no, but insults with something else is ok?

Sure, as long as someone posts actual content I don't mind. Notice that neither of us have just posted any content, and that we are now bickering over definitions. Exactly what i don't want.

Surely there must be more that's changed in the last year, literally nothing of consequence has been posted and the most work seems to have been done on the 'debunker' side.

Let me ask you something..

What changed in the OJ Simpson murder case in the past few years? Did OJ admit his guilt? Did any new evidence become public? Nope! Because the case was closed a long time ago. Same with 9/11, with your help the case was closed a long time a go. The truth is still true, and the debunkers are still lying to protect the criminals.

I know my post doesn't fit your guidelines, so I won't post anymore, wouldn't want to upset anybody, you know.

reply to post by exponent

One potentially positive test but with a hasty conclusion

I don't know if I would agree that the conclusion is hasty.

It isn't "absolute", but that is true of all good science, so I see that as a positive not a negative. There is of course grounds for healthy doubt, but again, this is a sign of good research, not bad, and as such tends lends additional credence to the finding in my eyes.

Promises of further diagnostic tests and independent research which have now been explicitly abandoned

Again, good science is marked by raising more questions than it answers. That is usually one of the identifying characteristics.

There will always be more tests required. But at some point you have to ask yourself whether it is worth the time, given the specious nature of the objections to the initial work it is no surprise to me that he should have abandoned it.

What does surprise me is that none of the OS'ers who claim that this further work should be a cakewalk has contacted a government source to get samples for research and do it themselves if it is so easy. Now the guy who was PAID also failed to do the same, so I have to ask...

One video of 'ignition' which shows some burning but does not compare to similar tests

I am not sure which video you are referring to, or which similar tests you mean.

All I know is that the metal sphere argument is sound, has not been empirically refuted with any test in that no "paint" has been shown to behave this way, or look like this.

The only thing that the products resemble was this experiment:



...but I realize that is also in dispute because of the composition.

I haven't seen anything remotely similar from any "paint" experiments, and there is good reason to think that the underlying for thinking it may be paint is severely flawed at best. The argument seems to hinge on the idea that energy content/mass is what is key for explosives and/or accelerants, which of course is utter nonsense. But whether it is true or not there is no empirical basis for the paint theory, it is pure unsubstantiated conjecture.

One failed repetition of the burning effect and a lack of confirmation of any other reaction results

Are you referring to the French study? That was like a joke study. I don't think you should be putting much weight on that one.

Whatever flaws you can find in the Harritt paper are amplified a thousandfold in the French one, you can't in all seriousness ask me to take THAT at face value...

And besides, that one reproduced all the main findings but NOT the ignition, unless we are talking about different things here.

One analysis indicating that the substance does not contain thermite requirements and closely matches paints known to be in the towers

It doesn't look or behave anything like any paint and there is no empirical basis for thinking that it is paint.

It has a chemical signature that somewhat resembles paint, but then so does all aluminothermites so using that as a classification is only evidence of a faulty classification system that cannot correctly distinguish the two.

I agree that the chemical reaction and reaction products are key determinants of what it is. The composition itself is not necessarily hugely illuminating. Otherwise coal and graphite and diamonds and nano-tubes would all be the same thing, which clearly they are not.

Show me a paint that produces these products and looks this way under a microscope and then we may be talking, until then the only empirically supported conclusion is that it is thermite, whatever it ACTUALLY turns out to be.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
I don't know if I would agree that the conclusion is hasty.

It isn't "absolute", but that is true of all good science, so I see that as a positive not a negative. There is of course grounds for healthy doubt, but again, this is a sign of good research, not bad, and as such tends lends additional credence to the finding in my eyes.

This is the bit of your reply I wish to focus more initial attention on. Raising additional questions is not a sign of good research. I can agree with your general point that science that finds new discoveries is good science. But science which resolves these new discoveries is even better. It's a total fallacy to say that raising questions is better than answering questions.

Yes, ideally we would only be exploring new things, but there is no logic behind saying "ah, this study didn't conclude any issues, therefore i put my trust in it". That is meaningless. If Jones' study was actually high quality science it would raise and conclude the issues in the same paper. For example, in the video you linked a number of false comparisons were able to be drawn (claims of high explosive energy release etc) which manipulate viewers into believing evidence is stronger than it is. This is only doable because the paper was not conclusive.

There will always be more tests required. But at some point you have to ask yourself whether it is worth the time, given the specious nature of the objections to the initial work it is no surprise to me that he should have abandoned it.

Whether it's worth the time? Come on man, you've been arguing reasonably up to now but you're making ridiculous claims. Of course it's worth the time to prove that 3000 people were murdered by an entirely different entity. You cannot honestly be saying that you support him abandoning his work because some people argued his work was wrong? That's the least honest path a researcher can take.

What does surprise me is that none of the OS'ers who claim that this further work should be a cakewalk has contacted a government source to get samples for research and do it themselves if it is so easy. Now the guy who was PAID also failed to do the same, so I have to ask...

I'm not sure what you're asking. Remember I wasn't remotely involved with the original work, and Dr Jones' paper is too ambiguous to be able to reproduce things exactly, so I don't have as much of a problem with it as you do clearly. I'm willing to pledge at least $100 to having this test done though with a source you have impeccably scrutinised. Please let me know who this is and what the total cost will be.

I am not sure which video you are referring to, or which similar tests you mean.

All I know is that the metal sphere argument is sound, has not been empirically refuted with any test in that no "paint" has been shown to behave this way, or look like this.

The only thing that the products resemble was this experiment:

I'm afraid this is all nonsense. It was an interesting video and I made sure to watch it to the end, but the compound he produced was not remotely similar to the 'red chips' (which are supposed to be pre-ignition) and not remotely similar to any explosive or compound dangerous to steel in any significant way. This is the video I was referring to:


This is the only known video of a WTC dust chip being ignited. Compare this to the nanothermites just shown or the nanothermites Tillotson synthesized. It looks nothing like real nano thermite, its reaction speed is far too slow and there's no evidence of extreme temperatures (white flame my ass!)

there is good reason to think that the underlying for thinking it may be paint is severely flawed at best. The argument seems to hinge on the idea that energy content/mass is what is key for explosives and/or accelerants, which of course is utter nonsense. But whether it is true or not there is no empirical basis for the paint theory, it is pure unsubstantiated conjecture.

I'm afraid you're just typing nonsense again here my friend. The fact is that whatever the red chips are they show a significantly different DSC trace to nanothermite. This cannot be disputed. The fact that they show that they release more energy is a good indicator that they're not the same compound. This is not 'unsubstantiated conjecture', this is matching chemical signatures. Simple as that really? There's no magic, just that it's made of the same materials and would explain the odd DSC trace.

Reply continued in next post

Are you referring to the French study? That was like a joke study. I don't think you should be putting much weight on that one.

Whatever flaws you can find in the Harritt paper are amplified a thousandfold in the French one, you can't in all seriousness ask me to take THAT at face value...

At 'face value'? I have no intention of suggesting the french study was in any way flawed. The researcher was provided the chips directly by Kevin Ryan iirc?

And besides, that one reproduced all the main findings but NOT the ignition, unless we are talking about different things here.

Ignition being the key result in my eyes. If this truly is a nanothermite that has remained unreactive (still has iron oxide present) then if it is unable to be ignited we have a serious issue with the theory. I contend that instead of 'igniting', the previous test (and video) show burning. That's also the conclusion of every single chemist I have talked to outside of Dr Jones' group.

It doesn't look or behave anything like any paint and there is no empirical basis for thinking that it is paint.

It has identical chemical composition to paint.
It's formulated in a matrix identical to paint.
It exists as a thin layer on top of a layer of steel scale
It exists in voluminous quantity throughout the tower dust

It looks and behaves identically to paint in an organic binder. Again so says every chemist I've explained this issue to (I'm afraid I can't give their names publicly, but we can discuss Dr Millette's results on this).

The key difference is the idea that it will produce 'iron microspheres'. But there exists only one test for this as far as I know, and it completely ignores any contamination. It's long been known that the tower could contain large quantities of iron microspheres both through the construction of materials such as the concrete floors, and the installation and building activity that went on there.

Show me a paint that produces these products and looks this way under a microscope and then we may be talking, until then the only empirically supported conclusion is that it is thermite, whatever it ACTUALLY turns out to be.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here. We already know thanks to JREF forum members that there was a WTC paint with pretty much identical chemical makeup. We know thanks to Dr Millette that the aluminium required to function as a fuel with the iron oxide does not exist in elemental form. We know from DSC experiments that the energy output is significantly different, and above the maximum expected for thermite.

I obviously labour under no delusions that you will suddenly accept these results just because I state them, but you seem to be painting the scenario as if paint would be so unbelievably different and have no chance of being mistaken for nanothermite. This despite the fact that all evidence is based off tiny chips of an identical colour and composition to paint, attached to steel scale extremely similar to the WTC steel. That's pretty damned close, and the key decider is if there is elemental aluminium, since that is a requirement for any thermite reaction with this compound.

Let's assume however for a minute that I, Dr Millette et al are wrong and that this is in fact a nanothermite.

Can you propose a way it could have been used to attack the towers which would not be better carried out with regular thermite, explosives, or a gas axe? It seems to me that this sort of compound can only exist in small quantities in the towers due to the visibility of a huge shower of molten metal. We also know it can't exist on fire floors due to its low ignition temperature.

From that we're left with small quantities in the rest of the building. To do what?!

Anyway, lots of questions, some speculation on both sides, but no insulting and no bickering. The right way to have a debate this is

Originally posted by maxella1
Let me ask you something..

What changed in the OJ Simpson murder case in the past few years? Did OJ admit his guilt? Did any new evidence become public? Nope! Because the case was closed a long time ago. Same with 9/11, with your help the case was closed a long time a go.

Please don't accuse me of things without having evidence. Thanks.

The truth is still true, and the debunkers are still lying to protect the criminals.

I know my post doesn't fit your guidelines, so I won't post anymore, wouldn't want to upset anybody, you know.

Well you're willing to say that I'm lying to protect the criminals so you pretty much have no scruples do you? You'll attack anyone who disagrees with you as morally reprehensible, despite the fact the people you're backing up are literally filling their own pockets directly.

Tell me, what questions remain outstanding in the OJ case? We know practically every detail, and the only thing that went his way was the jury decision. In the WTC case for example you can't even answer a single question that's posed, like:
What caused the observed bowing minutes before collapse?

You think you can compare the 911 attacks to the OJ trial, despite the fact that you don't even have a case for the prosecution yet. That is your key mistake, it's been a decade and there isn't even 10 people on this site that could get together and actually agree on a complete case. You all disagree with each other as much as me. In the last day we've had people post in support of thermites, explosives, missiles, planes, no planes, no victims, no explosives.

When you have resolved this (as I have been pushing people to do for 2-3 years now) then you might be able to draw an analogy, but the best that any truth movement group has so far are AE911truth's 'indicators', which contain hilarious contradictions even on their own. Hopefully you can understand why I don't see the two as parallels.

reply to post by exponent

The researcher was provided the chips directly by Kevin Ryan iirc?

And...

...I don't see your point here...

If this truly is a nanothermite that has remained unreactive (still has iron oxide present) then if it is unable to be ignited we have a serious issue with the theory.

Ah, but you see here is the rub.

That result can only be trusted if we are convinced that there was nothing done in the preparation of those chips which would ensure such an outcome, and conversely that every precaution was taken to avoid damaging the chips in this process such that but for that ignition would have occurred.

That is where trust come into science.

It has identical chemical composition to paint.
It's formulated in a matrix identical to paint.
It exists as a thin layer on top of a layer of steel scale
It exists in voluminous quantity throughout the tower dust

I'm sorry, but I have not seen paint that looks and behaves as described. It does not have a chemical composition identical to any known paint, it is merely similar in some respects to some paints. It has not even been demonstrated to my knowledge that it resembles paint visually at that scale. All evidence I have seen is to the contrary.

The chemical composition itself is only marginally relevant. As I said, diamonds has the same chemical composition as pencil lead, that doesn't make them the same thing.

The main identification was made on the products of the reaction, and no convincing alternative source has ever been demonstrated. Lots have been proposed, but every one turns out to be a dud in the end.

reply to post by exponent

Please don't accuse me of things without having evidence. Thanks.

Wait a second.... Are you defending the official version of the conspiracy theory ?

reply to post by maxella1


Sure, but I'm not stopping anyone collecting any new information and I helped close no official case. I simply argue my viewpoint as I see it. To accuse me of being partially responsible in any way is just silly.

Originally posted by Darkwing01

The researcher was provided the chips directly by Kevin Ryan iirc?

And...

...I don't see your point here...

Some people seem to think that his test failed because the chips were different chips.

Ah, but you see here is the rub.

That result can only be trusted if we are convinced that there was nothing done in the preparation of those chips which would ensure such an outcome, and conversely that every precaution was taken to avoid damaging the chips in this process such that but for that ignition would have occurred.

That is where trust come into science.

Sure, but the statement cuts both ways. We have to trust that Dr Jones didn't select his experiments and results (even unconciously) to favour a particular result. I would contend that there is much stronger evidence of this in his paper and subsequent activities than with either of the alternate sources of information.

I'm sorry, but I have not seen paint that looks and behaves as described. It does not have a chemical composition identical to any known paint, it is merely similar in some respects to some paints.

I was under the impression that a paint had been identified for each of the various samples. I'll check up on that and get back to you if you like, but you later say that that the chemical composition itself is marginally relevant. This is a strange thing to say, because you cut again at the body of knowledge available and instead select one particular criteria:

The main identification was made on the products of the reaction, and no convincing alternative source has ever been demonstrated. Lots have been proposed, but every one turns out to be a dud in the end.

Could you give me an example of an explanation that has been proposed and turns out to be a dud? I assume you're referring to 'iron-rich microspheres' here and I have seen several plausible explanations for their origin.

I also posted a number of other questions you have not responded to. If you would be so kind?

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by maxella1

 

Sure, but I'm not stopping anyone collecting any new information and I helped close no official case. I simply argue my viewpoint as I see it. To accuse me of being partially responsible in any way is just silly.

There is no more new information to collect. Any self respecting person willing to look at the evidence available can see how obvious it is that the real criminals are still walking around free. And you are defending their lies.

I simply argue my viewpoint as I see it. You are part of the problem and that is disgusting not silly.

Originally posted by maxella1
There is no more new information to collect. Any self respecting person willing to look at the evidence available can see how obvious it is that the real criminals are still walking around free. And you are defending their lies.

I simply argue my viewpoint as I see it. You are part of the problem and that is disgusting not silly.

You say this at the same time as ignoring your inability to answer questions, and for the truth movement in general to come to any firm conclusion.

Tell me, which theory do you subscribe to? Was it thermite? Normal or nano? Small quantities or large? Maybe explosives? Did they use cutter charges or did they use giant explosives to blow huge panels out of the side of the WTC?

These are not forensic questions, they do not require any special access or understanding to address. They require information. If you truly believe there is 'no more new information to collect' then you believe yourself to understand the situation as fully as is possible. If you can't answer my questions and maintain coherence with your sources of information, then what does that say about your understanding?

reply to post by exponent

Tell me, which theory do you subscribe to? Was it thermite? Normal or nano? Small quantities or large? Maybe explosives? Did they use cutter charges or did they use giant explosives to blow huge panels out of the side of the WTC?

The theory I subscribe to is very simple. Innocent people do not go out of their way to cover up their activities leading up to the crime. Innocent people do not intentionally destroy documents related to the information about the accused criminals.

In the real world people who failed to do their jobs and other people lost their lives as the result suffer some kind of consequences. In the case of 9/11 that didn't happen, and i don't think Bin Laden was and is still protecting these people.

In a real crime scene investigation where huge buildings were completely destroyed explosives are actually looked for in the rubble by the investigators. But NIST couldn't hear explosions in the videos and ignored eyewitnesses who reported explosions, and therefor concluded that explosives were not used . And that is obviously stupid.

So that is what theory i subscribe to .

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by exponent

 

The theory I subscribe to is very simple. Innocent people do not go out of their way to cover up their activities leading up to the crime. Innocent people do not intentionally destroy documents related to the information about the accused criminals.

In the real world people who failed to do their jobs and other people lost their lives as the result suffer some kind of consequences. In the case of 9/11 that didn't happen, and i don't think Bin Laden was and is still protecting these people.

In a real crime scene investigation where huge buildings were completely destroyed explosives are actually looked for in the rubble by the investigators. But NIST couldn't hear explosions in the videos and ignored eyewitnesses who reported explosions, and therefor concluded that explosives were not used . And that is obviously stupid.

So that is what theory i subscribe to .

I would tend to agree with a small part of your theory. Not a single person lost their job within the government where there should have been several. I would even go further and say that promotions were given to some of the idiots that failed to do their jobs. The "cover up" was not evidence of a "LIHOP", but one to cover up the mistakes and incompetence of many of the agencies within the government. Richard Clark wrote a few books and I encourage you to read these two.

Against All Enemies
www.amazon.com...=la_B001IGSYL2_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1338821186&sr=1-2

Your Government Failed You: Breaking the Cycle of National Security Disasters
www.amazon.com...=la_B001IGSYL2_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1338821186&sr=1-3




NIST, along with 99.9999 percent of the population did not hear or see anything that would lead them to believe there were bombs going off. There are a few videos out there that validate this fact. I do know that there were explosions within the towers. This is typical in any large building fire. I am sure this has been explained to you countless times.

The steel was taken to Fresh Kills Land fill where it was examined for explosives.
www.nysm.nysed.gov...

More Info:

WTC Crime Scene
And although this is a fire scene, it is also a crime scene, which means a large unit of crime scene investigators is present, working from a tent at the corner of West St. and Liberty. (p. 194)

NYPD Detective first grade Hal Sherman: "At Ground Zero the CSU is responsible for photographing the site, recovering physical evidence, documenting body parts and any other physical evidence like weapons or a wallet, manning the temporary morgue at the site (as well as the city morgue up on 28th Street), inspecting debris that leaves the site, and inspecting debris as it gets sifted out at Staten Island. ...All evidence is documented– airplane parts were essential to the beginning investigation, but now they look for hair, fibers, glass particles, semen, ballistics. ...We ID every part. Pillars and beams are swiped for hair, tissue and blood, evaporated body evidence. We have two police officers with mortuary degrees, and they are either in the medical examiner's office or the police lab, because you must be a sworn police officer to take evidence.

If you step on a fly ten times there will be nothing left. And here we have no couches, no computers, no chairs, no glass. Any small trace of anything is evidence. Anything to bring closure to the families. Human body part, clothing, jewelry, equipment and tools, anything. If there ever is a trial, we will be prepared. We've been here from day 1, and we'll be there well after the regular police officers go home, when everyone is packed up and gone." (p. 326-327)

There are two dump sites. One is in Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn, and the other is in Great Kills, Staten Island. At each location police Investigations Unit detectives and FBI agents are spotting and sifting through every truckload, searching for the flight recorders of the planes and for any remains of the victims.

Source: Report From Ground Zero. Smith, Dennis. New York: Penguin, 2002

"Law enforcement authorities survey the material for evidence. Only then is it released to a scrap processor under an existing long-term contract with the NYC Department of Sanitation to purchase and then recycle scrap metal."–

www.americanrecycler.com...

reply to post by Six Sigma

The "cover up" was not evidence of a "LIHOP", but one to cover up the mistakes and incompetence of many of the agencies within the government.

A cover up is evidence of guilt. But you think that you uncovered everything they are covering up?

NIST, along with 99.9999 percent of the population did not hear or see anything that would lead them to believe there were bombs going off. There are a few videos out there that validate this fact. I do know that there were explosions within the towers. This is typical in any large building fire. I am sure this has been explained to you countless times.

Now that is completely false, but I'm tired of even talking about it with you people.

The steel was taken to Fresh Kills Land fill where it was examined for explosives.

In the quoted text they are saying that they were looking for airplane part, traces of victims, and identifying structures from the buildings. Did I miss the part where they were looking for traces of explosives ?