[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Trump Lawyer WARNS Letitia James, Vows RETRIBUTION After Trump Win: 'We'll Put Your Fat A** In JAIL' Tucker Carlson:11/7/2024 "now that Trump is president, i can tell you everything" Fear-Stricken Pharma Big-Wigs Convene Emergency Teleconference to Thwart RFK Jr. Judge strikes down Joe Biden administration program aimed at easing citizenship pathway for some undocumented immigrants CNN faces another defamation lawsuit after appeals court sides with Project Veritas These Hollywood Celebrities Swore They'd Leave America If Trump Won All Talk, No Walk Blaze News original: Border Patrol whistleblower's career on the line after spotlighting trafficking horrors Dems open can of worms by asking about millions of 2020 Biden voters who somehow disappeared in 2024 Deadline: US says Israel failing in aid efforts. What happens now? Kash Patel, Rumored Pick for CIA Chief, Announces Massive Declassification Will Occur Hezbollah unveils ‘Fateh 110’ ballistic missile in targeting Israeli sites Pentagon running low on air-defense missiles as Israel, Ukraine gobble up remaining supplies An Open Letter To Elon Musk Is this why Trump was allowed to win? This Is The Median Home Price In Each US State Alex Soros Shocked That the Incumbent Political Order Is Being Crushed Around The Globe Beverly Hills Lawyer Disbarred Two Years After Admitting He Paid a Ringer to Take the Bar Lumumba: 'I am not guilty, and so I will not proceed as a guilty man.' Lauren Boebert Wins House Election After Switching to More Conservative Colorado District AIPAC Boasts of Influence Over Congress, Ousting 'Eleven Anti-Israel Candidates' Police Searching for 40 Escaped Monkeys After Mass Breakout from South Carolina Research Facility "You Don't Deserve Any Respect!": Steve Bannon Goes Scorched Earth On Democrats On Election Night Livestream Putin's ready to talk now that the mentally ill homosexuals have been brushed aside Trump, the Economy & World War III: Col. Douglas Macgregor Ex-Top Official Catherine Austin Fitts: Inside Trump’s Victory, RFK Jr., and the Deep State 10 Big Losers That Weren't On The Ballot Elon’s first day working for the Federal Government Senior Harris Advisor Deletes X Account As "Massive Scandal" Brews Over $20 Million In Campaign Debt Biden addresses the nation after Trump's election victory Top Foods & Lifestyle Habits To Make New Mitochondria For Longevity | Dr. William L

9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: What became of War?
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 20, 2009
Author: me
Post Date: 2009-04-20 21:38:39 by Critter
Keywords: None
Views: 2985
Comments: 167

Ain't seen that shilly dimwit for a bit. Did he get canned for inferior shilliness?

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 124.

#1. To: Critter (#0)

he's licking his wounds at LP.

litus  posted on  2009-04-20   21:57:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

he's licking his wounds at LP.

He's going to wear his tongue out. He got lots of wounds here. hehehe

Critter  posted on  2009-04-20   22:08:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

He's going to wear his tongue out. He got lots of wounds here. hehehe

lolol!!

O_I, FL, TT, and many others got him "but good".

fofl!

litus  posted on  2009-04-20   22:10:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

O_I, FL, TT, and many others got him "but good".

He didn't have a whole lot to say about those 660+ engineers and architects who question the 9/11 report. In fact, since it directly and absolutely proved his assertions wrong, it appears he put his tail between his legs and ran off.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-04-21   8:24:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

He didn't have a whole lot to say about those 660+ engineers and architects who question the 9/11 report. In fact, since it directly and absolutely proved his assertions wrong, it appears he put his tail between his legs and ran off.

No, he hasn't, has he?!

litus  posted on  2009-04-21   10:03:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Why would I overweight what less than 1% of the total of their combined fields have to say versus underweighting the OVERWHELMING majority... Gee 600 out of 100K...

war  posted on  2009-04-21   10:39:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Why would I overweight what less than 1% of the total of their combined fields have to say versus underweighting the OVERWHELMING majority... Gee 600 out of 100K...

Got some firm numbers on that shillster, or are you just pulling that 100K figure out of your ass as usual?

Post some proof that there are 100K engineers and architects who approve of the 9/11 Commission's findings.

I won't hold my breath.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-04-21   11:54:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

(war) Post some proof that there are 100K engineers and architects who approve of the 9/11 Commission's findings.

Support your claim war.

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2009-04-21   12:46:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Post some proof that there are 100K engineers and architects who approve of the 9/11 Commission's findings.

How many enginners are there?

war  posted on  2009-04-21   13:20:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Post some proof that there are 100K engineers and architects who approve of the 9/11 Commission's findings.

How many enginners are there?

Proof that there are 100K engineers and architects who approve of the 9/11 Commission's findings.

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2009-04-21   13:22:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The proof is on this thread, moron. There aren't even 600 of them who object to it...

Math is an issue with you?

war  posted on  2009-04-21   13:26:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The proof is on this thread, moron. There aren't even 600 of them who object to it...

Proof? What, your question as to how many engineers are there in the world is supposed to be PROOF? You don't have ANY proof of how many approve of the 9/11 Commission findings, you just made up a number and tried to say there is that many because there MIGHT be that many in the world, and since they haven't publically made a statement concerning their thoughts, well then by gosh they must agree with the official story. What a dishonest cretin you are.

As far as your comment that there aren't even 600 who object to the 9/11 Commission findings, you are a liar, as the proof of that has been posted to you at least twice here on 4um.

Here it is again so that you can't say it wasn't posted, AGAIN.

660+ Engineers and Architects Question the 9/11 Commission Report

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-04-21   21:36:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

"What we are faced with is a lie of such proportions that even to suggest it makes one subject to ridicule and scorn. Who could have done such a terrible thing? Certainly not our government or military. Rogue elements in the intelligence agencies? I have no idea.

But I do know that the official explanation doesn't hold water. An open, honest re-opening of the case is in order. A near majority of Americans agrees with this view. Let us keep pressing for an honest investigation."

- David A. Johnson

Just off the top of the list: 660+ Engineers and Architects Question the 9/11 Commission Report

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect – Member, American Institute of Architects. A practicing Architect for 20 years who has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings. Founding member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Speech at Sonoma State University 4/20/07:

"Another 2006 poll by Scripps Howard, Ohio University, which found that a shocking 16% believe that the World Trade Center's Twin Towers were brought down by explosives. Unfortunately, my research has also concluded that this is true. Tonight I will present to you the very clear evidence that all three World Trade Center high-rise buildings, the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed not by fire as our government has told us, but by controlled demolition with explosives." http://ae911truth.org/aboutus.php

David A. Johnson, B.Arch, MCP (City Planning), PhD (Regional Planning), F.AICP – Internationally recognized architect and city and regional planner. Professor Emeritus, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Tennessee. Former Professor and Chair of the Planning Departments at Syracuse University and Ball State University. Elected Fellow, American Institute of Certified Planners (2004). Past President of the Fulbright Association of the United States. Recipient of five Fulbright Scholarships for continued education in Cyprus, India, Thailand, and the Soviet Union. Directed educational projects in Brazil and Portugal. Active in reconstruction efforts in Bosnia and bicommunal peace-making in Cyprus. Former professional planner on the staffs of the Washington National Capital Planning Commission and the Regional Plan Association of New York. Former editorial board member of the Journal of the American Planning Association. Author of numerous journal articles on urban and regional planning theory and history. Author of Planning the Great Metropolis (1996). Co-author of The TVA Regional Planning and Development Program (2005). Contributing author to Two Centuries of American Planning (1988). Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"I was dubious of the official explanations from the outset. You see, as a professional city planner in New York, I knew those buildings and their design. I attended and participated in the hearings at the New York City Hall when the buildings were first proposed. I argued for the buildings on the basis that the interior core represented a way of internalizing the cost of mass transit, which in our system is almost impossible to finance through public bond issues.

So I was well aware of the strength of the core with its steel columns, surrounding the elevators, and stairwells. I should also mention that with a degree in architecture and instruction in steel design (my Yale professor had worked on the Empire State Building) I was and am no novice in structural design.

When I saw the rapid collapse of the towers, I knew that they could not come down the way they did without explosives and the severing of core columns at the base. The spewing of debris from the towers where the planes entered also could not have occurred simply with just a structural collapse. Something else was happening to make this occur.

Moreover, the symmetrical collapse is strong evidence of a controlled demolition. A building falling from asymmetrical structural failure would not collapse so neatly, nor so rapidly, as you have pointed out.

What we are faced with is a lie of such proportions that even to suggest it makes one subject to ridicule and scorn. Who could have done such a terrible thing? Certainly not our government or military. Rogue elements in the intelligence agencies? I have no idea.

But I do know that the official explanation doesn't hold water. An open, honest re-opening of the case is in order. A near majority of Americans agrees with this view. Let us keep pressing for an honest investigation." http://www.ae911truth.org

H. Theodore Elden, Jr., B.Arch, AIA – Practicing licensed architect in West Virginia for over 25 years. Now retired. Graduate of Carnegie Mellon University. Member, American Institute of Architects, West Virginia Chapter. Appointed Member of West Virginia State Board of Architects. Former Member, National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), and Member, National Committee, Intern Development Program for Architects (IDP). Professional photographer. Letter to American Institute of Architects 11/26/06:

"The primary duty of registered professionals is to protect the public safety. Professionals' intelligence, knowledge and experience provide a delicate connection between science and fact. ...

9-11 was a tragic event for our country, quickly “solved” by our government and propagated by our media, leading our country into fear, anguish, anger, war and unrestrained spending.

Have we, as building professionals, been hoodwinked? Who should better understand the collapse of the World Trade Towers than those in our profession, possibly with the consultation of demolition experts?

As I and millions have reviewed the events of that day, it seems much of the cover story is not true and impossible. As the nation is confused on the reality of that day, have we been making bad decisions ever since?

My web site collects salient information that isolates the demise of the World Trade Towers – linking many experienced, dedicated and articulate technical analysis that show clearly that the World Trade Towers were destroyed by internal explosives and not "fires from the airlines". ...

After hundreds of hours of research, and thousands of dollars purchasing materials and information, this letter outlines my most salient, articulate examples of things that architects should investigate. If I err slightly in any single item, that does not discount this letter. On the contrary, even if only part of these accusations are true, they should be investigated." http://www.abodia.com/911

randge  posted on  2009-04-21   21:58:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

There are 125K enginners in the professional organization that assisted both FEMA and NIST in the 9/11 report. Furtermore, that same organization, used the 9/11 report to formulate standards that would try to immunize buildings from the type of damage and catastrophe that occurred on 9/11.

Based upon the silliness that I have seen out of you Moonbats, I really do not expect you to see how stupid it is to point to barely 600 out of 125THOUSAND...

war  posted on  2009-04-22   10:00:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

DEBUNKING THE 911 OMISSION REPORT:

The following Veteran National Security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 Commission, even though they had direct and relevant information related to the Commission’s investigation:

John M. Cole, Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist; FBI - Mr. Cole worked for 18 years in the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division as an Intelligence Operations specialist, and was in charge of FBI’s foreign intelligence investigations covering India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Mr. Cole had knowledge of certain activities that directly related to the terror attacks on September 11, 2001. He notified the 9/11 Commission during its investigation, but never received a response. His name and contact information was provided to the Commission as a key witness by other witnesses, but he was never contacted or interviewed.

John Vincent, Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI - Mr. Vincent worked for the FBI for 27 1/2 years before retiring in 2002. He worked his last 8 years in counterterrorism in the FBI’s Chicago Field Office. Mr. Vincent, along with Robert Wright, exposed inefficiencies within the FBI in working counterterrorism cases, and certain warnings they had tried to pursue prior to the 9/11 attack that were directly related to Al-Qaeda’s financial network and money laundering activities. Although he was granted an interview, the commissioners’ investigators refused to let him provide them with information related to his case and the 9/11 terrorists network; they insisted on limiting the interview to only administrative and irrelevant questions and issues.

Robert Wright, Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI - Mr. Wright is a veteran special agent in the FBI Chicago Field Office Counterterrorism Unit. He had been investigating a suspected terrorist cell for three years, when he was informed in January 2001 that the case was being closed. Agent Wright, along with Mr. Vincent, exposed inefficiencies within the FBI in working counterterrorism cases and certain warnings they’d tried to pursue prior to the 9/11 attack that were directly related to Al-Qaeda’s financial network and money laundering activities. Three months before September 11, Wright wrote a stinging internal memo charging that the FBI was not interested in thwarting a terrorist attack, but rather "was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred." The FBI refused to allow Wright to testify before the 9/11 Commission, however, the Commission did not insist or attempt to subpoena Wright; despite the fact that it had subpoena power.

Sibel Edmonds, Former Language Specialist; FBI - Ms. Edmonds worked for the FBI’s Washington Field Office as a language specialist with Top Secret Clearance performing translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations dealing with Turkey, Iran, and Turkic speaking Central Asian countries. She contacted the 9/11 Commission in May 2003 and requested a meeting to provide them with information directly related to the terrorist attack. The Commission investigators refused to meet with Edmonds and informed her that due to their limited resources and time they were not going to interview all witnesses. She was able to provide the commission with information and documents only after certain 9/11 family members intervened directly. Ms. Edmonds’ testimony was completely censored by the Commission.

Behrooz Sarshar, Former Language Specialist; FBI - Mr. Sarshar worked for the FBI’s Washington Field Office as a language specialist with Top Secret Clearance performing Farsi translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations dealing with Iran and Afghanistan. He had first- hand information of prior specific warning obtained from a reliable informant in April 2001 on the terrorist attacks of September 11. Mr. Sarshar contacted the Commission directly but was refused. He was given an interview with the Commission investigators only after 9/11 family members intervened directly. Mr. Sarshar’s documented testimony was completely omitted from the commission’s final report, despite his case being publicly confirmed by Director Mueller’s Office.

Mike German, Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI - Mr. German served sixteen years as an FBI Special Agent and is one of the rare agents credited with actually having prevented acts of terrorism before it became the FBI's number one priority. He contacted the Commission in the spring of 2004, but did not receive a response. In 2002 he reported gross mismanagement in a post 9/11- counterterrorism investigation, which included serious violations of FBI policy and federal law. Mr. German contacted the 9/11 Commission during its investigation and requested that he be given an interview session in order to provide them with certain domestic counterterrorism investigations that he’d pursued. According to Mr. German there were links between certain domestic and international counterterrorism related to the September 11 attacks. The 9/11 Commissioners refused to acknowledge his request and never interviewed him.

Gilbert Graham, Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence; FBI - Mr. Graham worked for the FBI’s Washington Field Office Counterintelligence Division until 2002. In February 2004 his name and contact information were provided to the Commission as a key witness with information pertinent to the Commission’s investigation. The 9/11 Commission refused to follow up and never contacted Mr. Graham.

Coleen Rowley, Retired Division Counsel; FBI - In May 2002, Coleen Rowley, as the Division Counsel at the FBI Minneapolis Office, blew the whistle on the FBI’s failure to pursue Zacarias Moussaoui’s case prior to 9/11, despite all attempts made by the Minneapolis division counterterrorism agents. She reported that FBI HQ personnel in Washington, D.C., had mishandled and neglected to take action on information provided by her division. Despite her high-profile case the commission chose not to interview Ms. Rowley. According to Ms. Rowley, no one from the FBI Minneapolis Office (several Agents had direct information) was ever asked to provide testimony, information, to the 9/11 Commission.

Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, DIA - Colonel Shaffer provided the Commission with detailed information on intelligence and pre warning information obtained by his unit’s data mining project, Able Danger. The 9/11 commission staff received not one but two briefings on Able Danger from Mr. Shaffer and his former team members, yet did not pursue the case, did not follow up on this documented report and refused to subpoena the relevant files. Mr. Shaffer’s testimony, together with other witnesses who corroborated his testimony and information, were censored by the 9/11 Commissioners and never made it to its final report.

Dick Stoltz, Retired Special Agent; ATF- Mr. Stoltz, a veteran undercover agent with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, had played an important role in Operation Diamondback between 1998 and 2001. The sting operation involved a group of Middle Eastern men living in New Jersey who were caught on tape in an ATF weapons sting conspiring to buy millions of dollars of weapons including components for nuclear bombs. The case came to a screeching halt with the arrest of only a handful of suspects in June of 2001 even though there was ample evidence that some of the people who were attempting to buy these weapons had connections with the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden himself. The 9/11 Commission refused to contact Agent Stoltz despite all attempts made by several witnesses from the intelligence & Law Enforcement Communities, and the 9/11 Family group, Jersey Moms.

Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Red Team Leader; FAA - Mr. Dzakovic had worked for the Security Division of the Federal Aviation Administration since 1987 as a Special Agent, as a Team Leader in the Federal Air Marshals, and from 1995 until September 11, 2001 was a Team Leader of the Red Team (terrorist team). Mr. Dzakovic had tried for several years prior to the 9-11 attacks to improve aviation security in the face of the ever-increasing terrorist threat. He provided the 9/11 Commission with his testimony and documented reports. His testimony and report to the Commission was completely omitted from the final report.

Linda Lewis, Retired Emergency Programs Specialist; USDA - Ms. Lewis worked for 13 years evaluating and coordinating federal, state and local preparedness for nuclear, radiological and chemical weapons emergencies. Prior to September 11, 2001, she had reported numerous inadequacies and dysfunctions in emergency preparedness, including a culture of intimidation that discouraged federal evaluators from reporting inadequacies in state and local plans and preparedness. USDA officials had thwarted her efforts to bring in terrorism experts to help the agency prepare for attacks on federal buildings, including bio-weapons attacks such as the anthrax attacks of 2001. In vain, she had urged FEMA officials to develop a national emergency communications plan and require interoperability of federally funded emergency communications equipment. In the absence of these preparations, New York City firefighters and police officers were unable to communicate critical information on September 11 at the World Trade Center. Ms. Lewis contacted the Commission and offered to provide information regarding dysfunctional government preparedness, but the Commission never responded.

Mark Burton, Senior Analyst; NSA – Mr. Burton served as an all-source threat analyst in NSA’s Information Assurance Directorate (IAD) for most of his 16- year career. He was the editor of IAD’s premier threat document; the 300+ page ISSO Global Threat Summary, and was an adjunct faculty member at NSA’s National Cryptologic School. He provided dozens of pages of relevant information to the 9/11 Commission, but was completely ignored and never asked to testify.

The above list does not include many others from the intelligence and law enforcement communities who had similarly contacted or reported to the commission but had been either turned away or censored, and of course many others’ who are still working within these agencies and are fearful of making their identities known, due to the relentless pursuit of and retaliation against whistleblowers by government agencies.

CREDIBLE CRITICS OF THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11

Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11 “Impossible”, “A Bunch of Hogwash”, “Total B.S.”, “Ludicrous”, “A Well-Organized Cover-up”, “A White-Washed Farce” Jan. 14, 2008 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11 "Flawed", "Absurd", "Totally Inadequate", "a Cover-up" Jan. 5, 2008 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation – Official Account of 9/11 "Impossible", "Hogwash", "Fatally Flawed" Dec. 13, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

Eight Senior Republican Administration Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False" Dec. 4, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report – Official Account of 9/11 a "Joke" and a "Cover-up" Sep. 23, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

That's a few of the 170 senior military/intelligence/governement challengers. Add them to the 660 architects and engineeers, 190 pilots/aviation professionals, 370 professors and 290 survivors/family members who challenge the government account.

How you can continue to believe the 911 Omission report is beyond me.

abraxas  posted on  2009-04-22   14:13:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

This was already posted to me today and on this thread and you Moonies wonder why I find you clueless...

war  posted on  2009-04-22   14:27:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

This was already posted to me today and on this thread and you Moonies wonder why I find you clueless...

It's obvious that you don't bother to read any information that contradicts your government consipiracy theory, no matter who posts or whom defies the government charade. You ignore what you cannot intellectually argue.

Clueless is continuing to cheerleader without offering any data beyond the Omission report to back up your claims. You prefer to digress to insults because you have no intellectual argument to substantiate your claims.

You learned well on LP to divert from the subject matter with insults, but that sort of lame diversion doesn't work so well at 4um.

abraxas  posted on  2009-04-22   14:54:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

It's obvious that you don't bother to read any information that contradicts your government consipiracy theory...

What is obvious is that you have your head up your ass and you can't understand twhy the flashlight you ahve in your hand isn't helping.

Helpful Hint: I commented on some specifics contained in what you accuse me of not reading.

war  posted on  2009-04-22   15:00:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

you have your head up your ass and you can't understand twhy the flashlight you ahve in your hand isn't helping.

Did you steal that line from Mad Dog or Yukon? Tactics are the same. Funny how you pretend to dispise such antics at LP while mimicking them around here.

When are you going to post the counter claims by chemists and physicists regarding the recent nano-thermite findings? First you claimed that a real chemist would debunk it. Then you watched a video of a real chemist in agreement. You claimed chemists would disagree but you have never provided a link or substantiated your elementary knowledge of chemistry used to refute the scientific paper.

abraxas  posted on  2009-04-22   15:10:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

When are you going to post the counter claims by chemists and physicists regarding the recent nano-thermite findings?

These "findings" as I have pointed out are not recent. The chemicals that these people CLAIM = thermite have long been listed as chemicals in the WTC dust.

That said, it is hardly clear from where these people even GOT the dust. There is no clear chain of custody here. There is no specific location cited which could reveal contamination of the alleged dust that they analyzed.

I am all over this board citing experts...providing links and video...instead of coming on here and pretending one thing, why don't you do some research with the handy dandy search function provided here...

war  posted on  2009-04-22   15:14:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#128. To: war (#124)

The chemicals that these people CLAIM = thermite have long been listed as chemicals in the WTC dust.

it is hardly clear from where these people even GOT the dust.

Verify this with a link to substantiate your claim. It it NOT in the Omission Report, nor is it in ANY of the NIST reports.

It is clear where they got the dust, it is clearly stated in the paper. Five samples were collected on sight, the one sample that could not be confirmed was excluded from the paper although the material found within the sample was IDENTICAL to the included samples.

Why don't you read the paper war? It's obvious you haven't read it while you continue to attempt to debunk it. READ IT.

Here is an additional analysis: Three Features of the Red-Gray Chips

A portion of Fig. 2, showing one of of the red-gray chips. ¼m means millionths of a meter. The length of the 100-¼m bar is therefore 1/10 of a millimeter -- about the width of a human hair. The three features of the red-gray chips highlighted here -- physical structure, chemical composition, and thermal behavior -- clearly establish that they are aluminothermic nano-composite pyrotechnics: advanced manufactured materials that may only have been invented as recently as the mid-1990s. Any one of these three features taken alone shows that the material is either a pyrotechnic or an advanced engineered material having no legitimate place in an office building. Any two of these features establishes that it is a high-tech pyrotechnic. That, combined with the material's abundance -- constituting perhaps 0.05 percent of the mass of the dust and therefore likely tens of tons within the buildings -- is clearly incompatable with prosaic sources, and fully consistent with the observations that the Towers were subjected to controlled demolitions.

1. Physical Structure The chips, whose structure is consistent from one sample to the next, are clearly an un-natural, manufactured material. The red layer is a nano-engineered composite, containing two types of nano- particles, each highly consistent in size and shape. The physical structure of the chips is revealed by microscopic visual inspection, most clearly using a scanning electron microscope. A thin red layer is supported by a gray layer of homogenous material. Zooming in on the red layer shows it to be composed of two different types of particles embedded in a porous matrix: thin plates typically hexagonal in shape, and faceted grains.

Three facts about the red layer are:

The particles are very small: the plates being only about 40 nanometers thick, and the grains are only about 100 nanometers in diameter. The particles are highly uniform in size and shape. The particles are intimately mixed in a highly consistent composition throughout the material. These are all features of a nano-engineered material. It is not possible that such a material was formed as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers.

FURTHER READING: physical structure of the chips

2. Chemical Composition The red layers contain abundant aluminum, iron, and oxygen, where the iron is associated with oxygen, and the aluminum is mostly in a pure, elemental, form. The relative quantities of aluminum, iron, and oxygen match those of the most common thermite formulation: Fe2O3 + 2 Al . 2 Al + Fe2O3 [4; Al2O3 + 2 Fe

This is the chemical equation of the most common type of thermite reaction: Two atoms of aluminum react with a molecule of iron oxide to form a molecule of aluminum oxide and two atoms of iron. Because the aluminum holds the oxygen much more tightly than does the iron, the reaction releases a great deal of energy -- about three times as much per unit of weight as is released by conventional high explosives.

The chemical composition of the chips is established by measuring the levels of elements in the chips' constituent parts. Using a scanning electron microscope equipped with X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), it is determined that each of the two types of particles in the red layer, as well as the porous material holding them, has a specific elemental composition.

Thus, the two types of nano-particles in the red layer contain the two ingredients of thermite: pure aluminum and iron oxide. Furthermore, the red- layer matrix in which the particles are embedded in a highly uniform manner is mostly silicon and oxygen -- similar in composition to known variants of nano- thermite optimized for high explosive pressure.

Although these elements -- aluminum, iron, oxygen, and silicon -- were all abundant in building materials used in the Twin Towers, it is not possible that such materials milled themselves into fine powder and assembled themselves into a chemically optimized aluminothermic composite as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers.

FURTHER READING: chemical composition of the chips

3. Thermal Behavior When the chips are heated to about 430ºC, they undergo a runaway chemical reaction producing temperatures of at least 1535ºC -- the melting point of iron.

The residues produced by these reactions -- iron-rich spheres -- match those produced by igniting commercial thermite and particles found in WTC dust samples.

The thermal behavior of the chips is analyzed using an instrument (a DSC) that measures the flow of heat into and out of the sample as its temperature is gradually increased. When the samples are elevated to about 430ºC, they ignite in a run-away rection that reaches at least 1535ºC. The fact that the reaction reaches those very high temperatures is evident from the reaction's residue of minute solidified iron-rich sphereoids -- residues that had clearly experienced temperatures above the melting point of iron to create molten droplets that became spherical under the influence of surface tension.

The iron-rich spheroids formed by heating the chips in this manner match those found in abundance in all of the samples of WTC dust studied, and those produced by the reaction of commercial thermite, both in appearance and in chemical composition revealed by XEDS analysis.

A measure of a pyrotechnics' performance is its energy density: how much energy can be packed in a given weight or volume. Estimates of the energy densities of chips ignited in the DSC shows them to be similar to those of conventional high explosives and conventional thermite. These estimtes include the weight of the inert gray-layer material, which may account for the range of energy densities of the four different chips.

Whereas structural and chemical analysis of the chips shows that they were designed as some kind of pyrotechnic, thermal analysis shows that, despite their fragmented form and age, are still active pyrotechnics, and ones with impressive energy densities.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered does not describe tests that might indicate the discovered material's power density. The fact that it ignites somewhere between 370ºC and 430ºC would seem to make it a delicate explosive, since an office fire could generate such temperatures. However, the material might have more than one reaction mode: It might be designed so that the more gradual heating by a fire causes it to deflagrate and appear to burn like a hydrocarbon material; whereas the small spot of extreme temperture provided by a micro-detonator causes it to detonate with a shockwave powerful enough to shatter objects several feet away.

Although building rubble can contain flammable materials, it is not possible that legitimate materials in the Twin Towers or by-products formed by the buildings' destruction reacted to produce temperatures high enough to melt iron.

FURTHER READING: thermal behavior of the chips

Conclusion As this simplified summary of the findings of the paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe shows, the distinctive red-gray chips found consistently in dust samples from the destroyed Twin Towers are clearly an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material. It is not even remotely possible that the material could have been formed spontaneously through any random process such as the total destruction of the Twin Towers. Nor is it possible that the material was present in the Towers for some innocent reason.

The chips are clearly the unexploded remains of a pyrotechnic material -- likely a high explosive -- that was present in the Twin Towers in large quantities.

abraxas  posted on  2009-04-22 15:24:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Here's my source: Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple Three Points of Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe that Anyone Can Understand by Jim Hoffman Version 0.7, April 18, 2009

http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=88063

abraxas  posted on  2009-04-22 15:26:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]