It's amazing to be on the receiving end of paranoia. I KNOW I've done the best job I can, because, well, I know what I was thinking. I'm in my own brain, ya know. For example, I called Jim Millette "Lab Guy" because I wasn't totally committed to him until I finished my research on him. I barely remember how I found him; who recommended him was much less important to me than who he is and what he can do. I was getting recommendations from people all over the place. People have gotten suspicious of Millette for doing the study at a discount, for doing the study at all, for ever having written a report for the EPA, etc etc etc. Kevin Ryan calls me dishonest. People assume that I found the Jenkins accusations and knew about Millette being in her sights when I never found his name in my various google searches. Millette's name was barely a footnote in 9/11 Truth literature until now, which is why I never found it (and I did look). I don't know who the person is that some people think I am, but it's not the real me you are seeing.
... the USGS posted the pH, at over 12, thus the data was available to me, in 2002, I have data from 2002 that has what the paper might call correct, available to the public. I have the doc here, on my computer.
The paper by that woman, clearly indicates the data was available, but she says a chart, has to draw a line, graphing, which we learned in GRADE school. You have to draw a line, in your mind, to see clearly the high pH. Not tough for an engineer, might be too much for a PhD in chemistry.
Thus, anyone who needed the data, the high pH, had access to the data in 2002. It seems kind of political, and since the real data was available, and she seems to be graph challenged, I can't understand the purpose. Maybe it is a little bit of peer professional assassination.
Does anyone think breathing dust is good for you? Do we need the EPA to warn us?
911 truth world is paranoid, another nonsense ploy, bring up tangential nonsense, raise doubt, spew some lies. What does the paper have to do with the guy doing the study now? Nothing. If he helped cover up the pH level, putting the so called "accurate" pH in a document in 2002, is like Cheney covering up shooting his friend by taking him to the hospital.
Why did the woman fail to take action in 2002? She had the data if she wanted it, why did she cover it up for years? What was the result of the paper she sent to Clinton, etal? Results; law suits? What? 911 truth never tells the rest of the story, and in this case, they can't because they are off on the next failed tangent, keeping their brain-dead followers busy with woo.
The woman took 5 years to break this story, is that slow or what? Was she in the EPA? I don't care, I have the data from 2002, and I can read charts, by eye, no line drawing required. If she is in the EPA, no wonder they failed, she is the one who can't catch errors, what she said were errors in real time. Big failure. Imagine pilots who can't catch errors in real time, big crash! 5 years?
the woman - played by Cate Jenkins, PhD
What does this tangential junk mean for 911 truth? SOP
PS: There's really nothing more to say until you can directly quote things Millette said in his past WTC dust studies. Don't just give me a link to a 100+ page document; I'm tired of scrolling through tons of materials. If there's anything besides the absurd claim that Millette said lots of iron but didn't say lots of iron-rich spheres in a study of health risks in the WTC dust, I'm still waiting. And it still makes me sick to see y'all tarring a man's professional intergity without solid proof. You've made some nasty accusations, you'd better back them up or back off.
The iron found is the same as background levels of iron in soil from the east coast, not surprising iron levels. You need to ignore all, especially 911 truth Followers, MM, ergo and others. They are trolls, they are not trying to help you understand 911. Ignore them and I. I don't need your study, but you are stepping up to the blackboard, you are doing something. Ignore everyone you need to, the paper junk is tangential political crap. The EPA and USGS published the "real" pH, people had access to data, and knew what was in the dust! 911 truth is lies, you don't have to prove it again; they prove they are are lies every chance they get. Good luck.
As stated in the initial USGS report to emergency response workers on Sept. 27, 2001, the materials identified by this study in the WTC dust and debris (chrysotile asbestos, glass fibers, alkaline concrete particles, potentially soluble metals) indicate that cleanup of dusts and the WTC debris should be done with appropriate respiratory protection and dust control measures.
My brother in-law lived close to ground zero, a few block away. After he left for work on 911, he never entered his aparment again. The entire area was wasted by the collapse. I can't figure out MM's point, he seems to be slinging mud with a blindfold on. He has to raise doubt to maintain his fantasy, this is what 911 truth has to do to fool the gullible. He failed to read the paper. Why does a PhD in the EPA wait 5 years to blow the whistle?
