WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

[chrismohr]

All I am saying about NFPA 921 is that it's not the specific area I have investigated all these years. It doesn't answer the question, "Cd or natural collapse?" All I know is that it is a recommended protocol for fire investigations. I would need to really study how it applies to this specific case and it's not an area of inquiry I choose to study for reasons above.

 

[Georgio]

...all evidence could be dismissed beforehand since logically any evidence might not conclusively prove anything in the end. Why bother collecting DNA from the blood in the hope that it might give away the murderer when it could simply be the blood from the victim only? Why document the fingerprints when they could be from the victim and not the murderer? Why document the witnesses that heard a gunshot when it is possible they only heard a car backfire?

I think this is a very strong argument. I've never understood the notion that if we can prove something could have happened naturally then that means it happened naturally, or that we may as well assume it happened naturally and stop looking into the situation. I would have thought that one witness statement that included the word 'explosion' would justify chemical testing for incendiaries at a crime scene.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I would have thought that one witness statement that included the word 'explosion' would justify chemical testing for incendiaries at a crime scene.

I presume you meant "explosives" rather than "incendiaries", because incendiaries don't explode. Since the crime scene was effectively removed to Fresh Kills and then searched thoroughly for anything relevant, any significant physical evidence of explosives would have been found. Samples of steel were examined and were not found to have features characteristic of explosive cutting; no detonators, detcord, charge casings, means for attaching charges or any other physical evidence was found in a search detailed enough to find bone fragments; no barotrauma was reported in anyone; and explosions are common enough in any fire.

Beyond that, the sheer extent of the crime scene makes chemical testing a moot point; what, and where, would one test? Remember how large the rubble pile was, in height and extent. Given that there was no reason other than a few people reporting some commonplace occurrences that are well explained by the fact that things explode in fires and major impacts sound like explosions, how much time and effort should have been expended, and how vanishingly small would have been the probability of detecting any explosives had there been any?

Dave

 

[Georgio]

I presume you meant "explosives" rather than "incendiaries", because incendiaries don't explode.

Yes. I got mixed up.

Since the crime scene was effectively removed to Fresh Kills and then searched thoroughly for anything relevant, any significant physical evidence of explosives would have been found. Samples of steel were examined and were not found to have features characteristic of explosive cutting; no detonators, detcord, charge casings, means for attaching charges or any other physical evidence was found in a search detailed enough to find bone fragments; no barotrauma was reported in anyone; and explosions are common enough in any fire.

That all makes sense to me. Ziggi - what do you think of the above quote?

 

[ozeco41]

The situation is far simpler than we tend to remember. We are the victims of too many years diligently chasing truthers down their false trail rabbit burrows.

On the issue of chemical testing for explosives/incendiaries.

The truthers would have us believe that chemical testing is the primary process. Hogwash. How do you decide what to test? So we end up as all too often debating within the false constraints of the truthers falsely limited scenario. Whether that limited scenario results from truther ignorance of the issues or truther deliberate mendacity does not matter.

Reality is that IF there is any possibility of explosive or incendiary cutting of steel:

STEP ONE - locate samples of steel which show cutting which could plausibly have resulted from explosives or incendiaries;
STEP TWO - if you want to eliminate doubt e.g. preparing evidence for a trial in the criminal jurisdiction THEN you may chemically test the ones which show the physical signs.

There were no bits of steel showing signs of explosive or incendiary THEREFORE there are no samples to subject to chemical test. End of discussion.

And the next time some truther plays the "no chemical tests" record ask the questions:
1) How do you decide which bits to test; AND
2) What if no bits show the signs.

 

[JSanderO]

The insane non critical thinking is how they came to that assertion.

Buildings which they know that collapse completely are done with CD.
These buildings collapsed completely ergo they must have been CDed

To prove this assertion they state:

no building has collapsed totally without CD
buildings in flames have never collapsed
fire were not hot enough to melt steel
there was melted steel reported so these were not office fires - this were CD caused

 

[Oystein]

Now let us suppose for a moment that there was a legal requirement to test something (what, really?) for explosives. Let's say failure to do so would result in a mandatory 2-year prison run.

Ok, let's identify those responsible, try them, and lock them up.

Then what? How do truthers procede from here? Will we now test for explosives? Obviously not, or will we? There exists nothing any longer to test!

Oh wait! The dust!

Well, Niels Harrit has dust. Steven Jones have dust. Have THEY tested for explosives (RDX, TNT, ANFO, ...)? No? Then we should try to put them in prison.

Oh wait! They found thermite, didn't they?!

No, they didn't. And Millette proved they didn't. Which brings us round to Jim Millette and why we discuss this stuff here in this Millette thread.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I think this is a very strong argument. I've never understood the notion that if we can prove something could have happened naturally then that means it happened naturally, or that we may as well assume it happened naturally and stop looking into the situation. I would have thought that one witness statement that included the word 'explosion' would justify chemical testing for incendiaries at a crime scene.

No visual evidence of explosives justifies testing.

 

[tsig]

Ziggi is just engaging in a strawman arguement, trying to use
Nist to prove non existent problems
In Millette's paper.

I think he ziggied when he should have zaggied.

 

[chrismohr]

I don't want to blame Ziggi for the fact that we are talking about fire protocol in a Millette WTC dust study thread. He sent me a private email and I chose to (and got permission to) reprint it here. In it he talked about both Millette's study and this whole fire investigation protocol thing. I responded to the Millette part of the email (which I have researched and have some ability to discuss), and at that point Ziggi went off on the other part, which is not relevant to this thread. Or is it? After all, Millette did an extremely thorough study of the dust for the EPA years before he analyzed it for thermite for us. In that case, Millette was looking for--and found--- a veritable witches' brew of toxins, all of which flatly contradicted the "air is safe to breathe" claim that the government made about the area near Ground Zero very shortly after 9/11. Of course, in his EPA analysis he never found explosives or propellants or thermite or other chemicals unique to CD. Kevin Ryan has attempted to trash Millette's EPA work, but to bolster his case Ryan quoted an EPA whistleblower when in fact she had praised Millette's work directly. I would guess there were other chemical analyses of the debris as well.

Did NIST violate the NFPA 921 protocol, and should they have followed it to the letter? Dave and Ozeco41 say the situation on 9/11 was not applicable to triggering NFPA 921 (which I have known for years from reading it myself that it is a recommendation not a requirement anyway).

God forbid I should ever take anyone's word here on anything. Ziggi would want me to research this independently (and of course to agree with him). I've been good about the former and not as good about the latter, in his eyes, because I continue to believe he is wrong in most of his assertions. He is much more aggressive about this fire protocol thing than Erik Lawyer of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, with whom I have talked a few years ago, and Erik never put the squeeze on me about this like Ziggi is. In fact, he invited me to speak at a 9/11 rally he was organizing in Washington. I would have come if time and money had permitted.

So my official word is that I am not willing to do hours and hours of research to get the full context of the issue of NFPA 921 and NIST, because it is not an issue that is relevant to my original mission. So I am officially neutral . My mission? To explore and report on the question of whether the evidence favors natural collapse or CD on 9/11. My mission is not, and has never been, to defend NIST or how well they follow protocol.

I'll be more responsive to challenges or comments on the Millette dust study.

 

[chrismohr]

double post

 

[ozeco41]

Did NIST violate the NFPA 921 protocol, and should they have followed it to the letter? Dave and Ozeco41 say the situation on 9/11 was not applicable to triggering NFPA 921 (which I have known for years from reading it myself that it is a recommendation not a requirement anyway).

Remember two things:
1) The official investigations followed a path of more rigour than the NFPA protocol on the aspects which were relevant to investigating the actual events.
2) The issue is not about NFPA protocols - they are only the specific issue Ziggi et al use as a red herring to take the focus of argument away from the primary point which Ziggi et al cannot support. There was no CD.

They want the discussion circling by discussing alligator teeth. So we will forget the objective is "Drain the swamp."

 

[ozeco41]

double post

Prove it!

Do you have a citation for that assertion?

 

[ozeco41]

I think this is a very strong argument. I've never understood the notion that if we can prove something could have happened naturally then that means it happened naturally, or that we may as well assume it happened naturally and stop looking into the situation.

Take care that you are not falling for the "reversed burden of proof" illogic so beloved by truthers.

The events have been investigated and reasoned conclusions reached that it was so called "natural". (horrible term BTW) So "it happened naturally" is the default or extant hypothesis. It did "happen naturally" until and unless someone produces a prima facie claim that it didn't. And "prima facie" means "a claim worthy of investigating".

No one has produced such a counter claim. There is no counter claim to examine. Your statement "we may as well stop looking" is loaded with implications and hyperbole. Ambiguously biased the truther way.

If there was a prima facie reason to re look AND it wasn't done you would have a point. There is no such reason.

I would have thought that one witness statement that included the word 'explosion' would justify chemical testing for incendiaries at a crime scene.

Again take care to avoid the truther trap.
1) There is no prima facie argument for explosives use;
2) Of course there were "explosions" in a massive fire driven building collapse. So what?
3) Why jump several steps to the truther nonsense that chemical testing is the first and only step in testing for incendiaries - or explosives which are more relevant here?

Before there can be testing for either there has to be selection of what is to be tested. You select samples which show evidence of explosive or incendiary action. Absent any such signs there is zero point in doing any "fishing expeditions" for chemical proof of damage which does not exist. Damage of the type caused by explosive or incendiary devices. If they were not used no point testing to see which specific one they were. If the damage ain't there there is nothing to test for. AND the chemical testing is only nail in the coffin final proof of what the physical evidence already says. More likely to pick which explosive than to prove it was explosive.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Before there can be testing for either there has to be selection of what is to be tested. You select samples which show evidence of explosive or incendiary action. Absent any such signs there is zero point in doing any "fishing expeditions" for chemical proof of damage which does not exist.

To emphasise that, it's worth pointing out that the debris from each of the Twin Towers ran to around a quarter of a million tons; add WTC3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and the total weight of debris would be somewhere between half a million and a million tons. In any sensibly organised demolition, the overwhelming majority of that debris would have been nowhere near the explosives. Chemically testing a million tons of debris for explosives, without first having a very good idea where to look for them, would make looking for a needle in a haystack seem trivial. Searching through the debris was the right thing to do, and it was done.

Dave

 

[chrismohr]

And hundreds of workers in the controlled demolition field were hired to comb through the wreckage, because they knew how to safely navigate debris piles. As a bonus, had there been remnants of any kind of CD in the debris, these people would have discovered it.

And OMG I can't prove I had a duplicate post! How can anyone take ANYTHING I say seriously?

Oh but wait: here's a citation that proves everything! http://coloradolottery.com

 

[Oystein]

...
2) Of course there were "explosions" in a massive fire driven building collapse. So what?
...

Today, while having lunch, I turned on the TV, and the first program I tuned into was one of those shallow lunch-time news shows that cover minor incidents like tragic car crashes, gas station robberies or children with rare deseases. Quite frequently they also report on fires. The story today was a series of arsons in bower allotments in Saxony. They interviewed firefighters who said that they had trouble getting water to last nights bower fire because lanes were too narrow and hydrants didn't have enough pressure, so by the time they started fighting for real, the little wooden house was burning all out and there were numerous explosions.

Last time I watched the show, a well-known restaurant near Hamburg (a tourist trap) had burned to the ground - and neighbors and fire fighters reported explosions.

Just to highlight what everybody here except for truthers accepts as a fact of life: Explosions occur frequently in building fires, but almost never do they indicate the use of explosives.

 

[Oystein]

...Searching through the debris was the right thing to do, and it was done.

And they had sniffing dogs both on the pile and at Fresh Kills, some of which were trained to detect explosives. None barked.

 

[Georgio]

Since the crime scene was effectively removed to Fresh Kills and then searched thoroughly for anything relevant, any significant physical evidence of explosives would have been found. Samples of steel were examined and were not found to have features characteristic of explosive cutting; no detonators, detcord, charge casings, means for attaching charges or any other physical evidence was found in a search detailed enough to find bone fragments; no barotrauma was reported in anyone; and explosions are common enough in any fire.

I've been thinking about this and have a couple of questions:

Where does the data for statements like, 'All the steel was checked through' come from?

My second question is horrible to talk about, but then the whole subject of 9/11 is horrible. If bodies had been reduced to bone fragments by the collapses, how would you know if there had been barotrauma or not? And if we are talking about bodies that had not been reduced to bone fragments, is it valid to argue that everyone in the WTC towers would have experienced barotrauma had there been explosives used?

 

[ozeco41]

...is it valid to argue that everyone in the WTC towers would have experienced barotrauma had there been explosives used?

Of course not.