Failures of investigation
Slightly revised Nov. 16 2011
Explosive traces in 9/11 dust?
July 14, 2011
Explosive traces in 9/11 dust?
Media ducked claim by experts
July 14, 2011
The "criminal-media nexus" under fire in London draws attention to major news events that have gone unreported by the mainstream press on both sides of the Atlantic.
In 2009, for example, a team of scientists reported that evidence of an advanced explosive, favored by the Pentagon, had been found in the dust of the collapsed World Trade Center towers. This paper came after an admission by the National Institute for Standards and Technology that it had done no forensic tests in its investigation of the collapses.
Yet a search today of Google News for the name of one of the investigators, Niels Harrit, a chemistry professor at the University of Copenhagen, turned up no mainstream news organizations, other than Berliner Umschau, which cited Harrit in an opinion piece.
In the paper, published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal, the scientists told of finding red-gray flakes in various samples of dust and determining that the flakes were from a material similar to that in advanced TBX weaponry.
The team had sought submissions of samples of dust from the public and received containers submitted by people who had decided to save such samples. The only samples used in the study came from the five persons who agreed to let themselves be identified publicly.
There has been no public statement from the FBI on the work of the scientists. However, it may be assumed that the evidence can be ignored based on the fact that the chain of custody is broken. There is no way to be sure that the samples weren't doctored.
And yet, such tampering would seem to have required a technically advanced conspiracy, wherein volunteers working for conspirators either submit doctored material or are able to intercept and switch samples. In other words, a tampering conspiracy would require a sophisticated intelligence operation.
But, the question then arises: if intelligence units were behind the 9/11 attacks, why didn't they intercept the samples and switch them for non-incriminating dust. It seems plausible that honest agents had made such a switch too risky, and that conspirators counted on what Britain's former prime minister, Gordon Brown, denounced as a "criminal-media nexus" that includes not only the Murdoch press, but other news organizations as well.
The report, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, told of igniting the chips and watching them flame. "The evidence for active, highly energetic thermitic material in the WTC dust is compelling," the scientists wrote.
http://www.diexx88blog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/activethermitic_911.pdf
[Also see 9/11 probers skipped key forensic tests https://deepstatefragments.blogspot.com/2017/11/911-probers-skipped-key-forensic-tests.html ]
They said the residues from ignited chips were "strikingly similar" to the chemical signature of commercial thermite. The scientists believed that the thermite residues were consistent with "super-thermite," also known as "nano-thermite," They cited a 2001 report on Defense Department research into "nano-energetics" and thermobaric (TBX) weapons.
Here is such a report:
http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf
"Super-thermite electric matches" had been devloped by Los Alamos National Laboratory for such applications as triggering explosives for demolitions, the experts noted.
The authors said their tests ruled out the possibility that the red chips were flakes of ordinary paint.
However, one of the authors, physicist Steven E. Jones, had already been given the Murdoch treatment for having raised questions over the reliability of official accounts, and it is quite possible that journalists and politicians alike shrank from covering the report out of fear of the "criminal-media nexus" blackball.
Harrit works alongside Thomas Bjorn Holm, head of the Nano-Science Center at the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and may have been able to consult with Bjorn Holm, whose name does not appear on the report.
Harrit's Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Niels-Harrit/32509864153
Jones was a professor at Brigham Young University before being pressured to retire as a result of his 9/11 criticism, http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/
The scientists used advanced technology, including scanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy and differential scanning calorimetry.
One of the authors, Jeffrey Farrer, manages the electron microscopy facility for Brigham Young University's Department of Physics and Astronomy. His research includes nano-particle and thermitic reactions.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/directory.aspx?personID=23
Another author is Kevin R. Ryan, terminated by Underwriters Laboratory after raising technical issues concerning the official 9/11 narrative.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm
Physicist Daniel E. Farnsworth, as with a number of experts critical of the government claims about 9/11, is retired and presumably beyond the reach of career retribution incited by the mendacious, criminalized press. Like Jones, Farnsworth taught at Brigham Young.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm Another author, Frank Legge, is an Australian chemist who serves as a co-editor at the Journal of 9-11 Studies. http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/mempages/Legge.html
Gregg Roberts, a 9/11 activist, is also listed, but a Google search gives no inkling of his scientific background. http://world911truth.org/tag/gregg-roberts/
James R. Gourley identifies himself as a chemical engineer in an extensive criticism he submitted to the National Institute of Standards and Technology 9/11 investigation.
http://911research.wtc7.net/letters/nist/WTC7Comments.html
Bradley R. Larsen is another author. His firm, S&J Scientific, does not appear to have a web page trackable by Google and his scientific background did not show up in a Google search.*
The authors acknowledge conversations with a number of 9/11 critics, including retired naval physicist David L. Griscom http://www.impactglassresearchinternational.com/
and former University of Iowa physicist Crockett Grabbe.
http://www.sealane.org/speak/index1.html
* CORRECTION: A previous version of this page linked to an incorrect web site for Larsen.
In 2009, for example, a team of scientists reported that evidence of an advanced explosive, favored by the Pentagon, had been found in the dust of the collapsed World Trade Center towers. This paper came after an admission by the National Institute for Standards and Technology that it had done no forensic tests in its investigation of the collapses.
Yet a search today of Google News for the name of one of the investigators, Niels Harrit, a chemistry professor at the University of Copenhagen, turned up no mainstream news organizations, other than Berliner Umschau, which cited Harrit in an opinion piece.
In the paper, published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal, the scientists told of finding red-gray flakes in various samples of dust and determining that the flakes were from a material similar to that in advanced TBX weaponry.
The team had sought submissions of samples of dust from the public and received containers submitted by people who had decided to save such samples. The only samples used in the study came from the five persons who agreed to let themselves be identified publicly.
There has been no public statement from the FBI on the work of the scientists. However, it may be assumed that the evidence can be ignored based on the fact that the chain of custody is broken. There is no way to be sure that the samples weren't doctored.
And yet, such tampering would seem to have required a technically advanced conspiracy, wherein volunteers working for conspirators either submit doctored material or are able to intercept and switch samples. In other words, a tampering conspiracy would require a sophisticated intelligence operation.
But, the question then arises: if intelligence units were behind the 9/11 attacks, why didn't they intercept the samples and switch them for non-incriminating dust. It seems plausible that honest agents had made such a switch too risky, and that conspirators counted on what Britain's former prime minister, Gordon Brown, denounced as a "criminal-media nexus" that includes not only the Murdoch press, but other news organizations as well.
The report, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, told of igniting the chips and watching them flame. "The evidence for active, highly energetic thermitic material in the WTC dust is compelling," the scientists wrote.
http://www.diexx88blog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/activethermitic_911.pdf
[Also see 9/11 probers skipped key forensic tests https://deepstatefragments.blogspot.com/2017/11/911-probers-skipped-key-forensic-tests.html ]
They said the residues from ignited chips were "strikingly similar" to the chemical signature of commercial thermite. The scientists believed that the thermite residues were consistent with "super-thermite," also known as "nano-thermite," They cited a 2001 report on Defense Department research into "nano-energetics" and thermobaric (TBX) weapons.
Here is such a report:
http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf
"Super-thermite electric matches" had been devloped by Los Alamos National Laboratory for such applications as triggering explosives for demolitions, the experts noted.
The authors said their tests ruled out the possibility that the red chips were flakes of ordinary paint.
However, one of the authors, physicist Steven E. Jones, had already been given the Murdoch treatment for having raised questions over the reliability of official accounts, and it is quite possible that journalists and politicians alike shrank from covering the report out of fear of the "criminal-media nexus" blackball.
Harrit works alongside Thomas Bjorn Holm, head of the Nano-Science Center at the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and may have been able to consult with Bjorn Holm, whose name does not appear on the report.
Harrit's Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Niels-Harrit/32509864153
Jones was a professor at Brigham Young University before being pressured to retire as a result of his 9/11 criticism, http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/
The scientists used advanced technology, including scanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy and differential scanning calorimetry.
One of the authors, Jeffrey Farrer, manages the electron microscopy facility for Brigham Young University's Department of Physics and Astronomy. His research includes nano-particle and thermitic reactions.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/directory.aspx?personID=23
Another author is Kevin R. Ryan, terminated by Underwriters Laboratory after raising technical issues concerning the official 9/11 narrative.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm
Physicist Daniel E. Farnsworth, as with a number of experts critical of the government claims about 9/11, is retired and presumably beyond the reach of career retribution incited by the mendacious, criminalized press. Like Jones, Farnsworth taught at Brigham Young.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm Another author, Frank Legge, is an Australian chemist who serves as a co-editor at the Journal of 9-11 Studies. http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/mempages/Legge.html
Gregg Roberts, a 9/11 activist, is also listed, but a Google search gives no inkling of his scientific background. http://world911truth.org/tag/gregg-roberts/
James R. Gourley identifies himself as a chemical engineer in an extensive criticism he submitted to the National Institute of Standards and Technology 9/11 investigation.
http://911research.wtc7.net/letters/nist/WTC7Comments.html
Bradley R. Larsen is another author. His firm, S&J Scientific, does not appear to have a web page trackable by Google and his scientific background did not show up in a Google search.*
The authors acknowledge conversations with a number of 9/11 critics, including retired naval physicist David L. Griscom http://www.impactglassresearchinternational.com/
and former University of Iowa physicist Crockett Grabbe.
http://www.sealane.org/speak/index1.html
* CORRECTION: A previous version of this page linked to an incorrect web site for Larsen.
Popular posts from this blog
'Activist scientist backs 9/11 line' and other old blog posts
The Znewz1 blog Paul Conant, aka Roger Conant, has reported for the New York Times. Conant is "that guy" who exists in a legal and media limbo that we're not supposed to talk about explicitly. Shhh... [Email: Znewz1@yahoo.com] Fight net censorship: LINK THIS BLOG TO YOUR SITE. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.This blog's ever-morphing bugs are intractable. I will try using another account. Please see http://znewz1alternate.blogspot.com SUNDAY, DECEMBER 24, 2006
Activist scientist backs official 9/11 line Manuel Garcia, a government weapons scientist, has gone to bat for the official narrative of the collapses of the World Trade Center towers as part of an assault by a group of leftists on those skeptical of government findings and the implication of a conspiracy within federal agencies.
Three analyses by Garcia were published by the noted leftist Alexander Cockburn in Cockburn's magazine Counterpunch. Cockburn, an Irishman living in the United S…
Activist scientist backs official 9/11 line Manuel Garcia, a government weapons scientist, has gone to bat for the official narrative of the collapses of the World Trade Center towers as part of an assault by a group of leftists on those skeptical of government findings and the implication of a conspiracy within federal agencies.
Three analyses by Garcia were published by the noted leftist Alexander Cockburn in Cockburn's magazine Counterpunch. Cockburn, an Irishman living in the United S…
Even more old posts in need of sorting
Kryptograff Kryptograff is where Paul Conant posts some of his musings on mathematics and science. Conant, a former newspaperman, holds no degrees in these areas. Write him at Conant78@gmail.com or phone ab8ab6ab5ab ba2ba3ba5ba ab2ab9ab4ab7ab (ignore non-numerals). Googling "Kryptograff" may direct you to other posts at different URLs. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2010Drunk and disorderly: the rise of entropy
Some musings about entropy posted Nov. 20, 2010 One might describe the increase of the entropy0 of a gas to mean that the net vector -- sum of vectors of all particles -- at between time t0 and tntends toward 0 and that once this equilibrium is reached at tn, the net vector stays near 0 at any subsequent time.
One would expect a nearly 0 net vector if the individual particle vectors are random. This randomness is exactly what one would find in an asymmetrical n-body scenario, where the bodies are close together and about the same size. The difference is that gravity isn't …
Some musings about entropy posted Nov. 20, 2010 One might describe the increase of the entropy0 of a gas to mean that the net vector -- sum of vectors of all particles -- at between time t0 and tntends toward 0 and that once this equilibrium is reached at tn, the net vector stays near 0 at any subsequent time.
One would expect a nearly 0 net vector if the individual particle vectors are random. This randomness is exactly what one would find in an asymmetrical n-body scenario, where the bodies are close together and about the same size. The difference is that gravity isn't …
9/11 probers skipped key forensic tests
This article appeared in PrisonPlanet December 6, 2008
Paul Conant
Znewz1
Saturday, Dec 06, 2008
Federal scientists ruled out controlled demolitions of three World Trade Center towers but declined to perform routine tests on soil and debris for traces of explosives or incendiaries, a review of National Institute of Standards and Technology publications shows.
The agency, which spent $16 million on its inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, collapses, said such tests weren’t needed because computer simulations and other considerations had shown that controlled demolitions were improbable. In an August 2006 fact sheet, the agency frankly admits that it did not test trade center steel for the residue of explosives or the incendiaries thermite and thermate. The agency’s decision to omit routine tests contrasts with its assertion that “some 200 technical experts — including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia — reviewed tens of thousands of d…
Paul Conant
Znewz1
Saturday, Dec 06, 2008
Federal scientists ruled out controlled demolitions of three World Trade Center towers but declined to perform routine tests on soil and debris for traces of explosives or incendiaries, a review of National Institute of Standards and Technology publications shows.
The agency, which spent $16 million on its inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, collapses, said such tests weren’t needed because computer simulations and other considerations had shown that controlled demolitions were improbable. In an August 2006 fact sheet, the agency frankly admits that it did not test trade center steel for the residue of explosives or the incendiaries thermite and thermate. The agency’s decision to omit routine tests contrasts with its assertion that “some 200 technical experts — including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia — reviewed tens of thousands of d…
Comments