Chain of Custody

[plague311]

So in another thread I saw someone talk about maybe starting a "chain of custody" thread for the dust. I found this Here

In April 2009, Steven E. Jones, along with Niels Harrit and 7 other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'. [10] NIST then said that there was no "clear chain of custody" to prove that the four samples of dust came from the WTC site. Jones invited NIST to conduct its own studies using its own known "chain of custody" dust, but NIST did not investigate

And This

One dismissal that is often heard is that this material was a natural occurrence resulting from the collapses. Dr. Harrit points out that this violates basic chemical principles, and that nano-thermite is a high-tech manufactured substance that cannot result from natural occurrences. Another charge is that the material was planted in the dust samples Dr. Harrit and his team examined, a claim Dr. Harrit regards as preposterous, noting that the chain of custody of each of the four samples examined for the peer-reviewed paper is well-documented.

And From SCL

Summers and Swann also state that well-sourced samples of World Trade Center dust, collected using completely appropriate chain of custody forms, are not good sources of information yet long-time propagandist, Gerald Posner, and Weekly Standard contributor, Thomas Joscelyn (who recently tried to link Iran to 9/11), are excellent sources.

So I guess I didn't really see any documented chain of custody. Per RedIbis:

Those who provided the samples provided sworn affadavits or videotaped testimony.

I didn't see any, but maybe I missed something.

I know that it's been stated the samples that will be used for the upcoming research has a chain of custody from FEMA? I believe? There has been some contestation as far as if the chain of custody is solid. I have no doubts it is, as Dr. Millette seems impartial to the studies results, other than his own curiosity.

If anyone can provide more, please do.

 

[plague311]

I read through the Bentham paper to see if they had links or anything that would direct me to the actual documentation. All I could really find is in the Acknowledgments portion it says:

The authors wish to thank Tom Breidenbach, Frank Delessio,
Jody Intermont, Janette MacKinlay, and Steve White
for dust samples acquired soon after the WTC 9/11 catastrophe.
We thank David Griscom, Mark Basile, David Allan,
Branton Campbell, Wes Lifferth, Crockett Grabbe, David
Ray Griffin, Mike Berger, Frank Carmen, Richard Gage,
Shane Geiger, Justin Keogh, Janice Matthews, John Parulis,
Phillipe Rivera, Allan South and Jared Stocksmith for elucidating
discussions and encouragement. Thanks to John Parulis
for gathering samples of residues from reacted commercial
thermite.

So once again, as I continue to read through this I still don't see any actual documentation giving the chain of custody at all.

 

[plague311]

Adding on, upon a bit closer review I found this:

The earliest-collected sample came from Mr. Frank Delessio
who, according to his videotaped testimony [17], was
on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time
the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He
saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick
dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful
of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the
end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the
North Tower.

pg. 3, first paragraph

The first one does have a video testimony. Seem pretty locked down.

This is related to the second sample:

On the morning of 9/12/2001, Mr. Stephen White of New
York City entered a room in his apartment on the 8th floor of
1 Hudson Street, about five blocks from the WTC. He found
a layer of dust about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry
near a window which was open about 4 inches (10 cm).
Evidently the open window had allowed a significant amount
of dust from the WTC destruction the day before to enter the
room and cover the laundry. He saved some of the dust and,
on 2/02/2008, sent a sample directly to Dr. Jones for analysis.

I see no documentation.

Affidavit for the 3rd that stated:

“This dust, which came from the ‘collapsed’
World Trade Center Towers, was collected from
my loft at the corner of Reade Street and Hudson
Street on September 12, 2001. I give permission
to use my name in connection to this
evidence”. [Signed 31 January 2008 in the presence
of a witness who also signed his name].

Bolding mine, this seems a little odd that he sends the affidavit in with collapsed already in quotes?

And then lastly:

She collected some of it into a
large sealable plastic bag for possible later use in an art
piece. Ms. MacKinlay responded to the request in the 2006
paper by Dr. Jones by sending him a dust sample. In November
2006, Dr. Jones traveled to California to visit Ms.
MacKinlay at her new location, and in the company of several
witnesses collected a second sample of the WTC dust
directly from her large plastic bag where the dust was stored.

So it appears I was wrong. They do have 1 video testimony, 1 affidavit, and then they flew to take some from the bag in the last. Sorry, I tried not to make it too long.

Just a thought, would it be possible to maybe contact this last witness. It said she sent more off to others in the next paragraph, maybe instead of asking Jones we could go straight to the source?

 

[Oystein]

plague, do you see any reason to doubt the origin of the dust samples? I don't.

I think the fact that they found chips in all four samples that are damned nearly identical in macro and micro (and nano) appearence, and XEDS spectra, and the fact that we could identify them as LaClede steel primer, is for me excellent corroboration that all four samples are indeed dust that settled near GZ after the WTC collapses.

 

[Edx]

When it says... "NIST then said that there was no "clear chain of custody"... when did NIST comment on their crappy paper?

 

[plague311]

plague, do you see any reason to doubt the origin of the dust samples? I don't.

I think the fact that they found chips in all four samples that are damned nearly identical in macro and micro (and nano) appearence, and XEDS spectra, and the fact that we could identify them as LaClede steel primer, is for me excellent corroboration that all four samples are indeed dust that settled near GZ after the WTC collapses.

I don't doubt them, it just really seems odd that Jones wouldn't offer them up if he was positive of their origins and his findings. That's why I said it wouldn't be a bad idea to see if someone could contact the individual with the bag of dust. If we could get a sample of the dust she has then we'd be going around Jones. We'd have the same dust, so in the future the "we had different dust" argument could be trumped. It would be the same dust, from the same person, and if they argue the chain of custody for that dust, they'd be tainting their sample as well.

 

[plague311]

When it says... "NIST then said that there was no "clear chain of custody"... when did NIST comment on their crappy paper?

I don't think NIST sought to comment on their paper, I think they went to NIST and asked why they hadn't tested the samples that Harrit, et al. had collected. NIST then said they didn't test due to lack of chain of custody.

 

[Trojan]

The evidence supplied, video and affidavit, hardly establish chain of custody -- certainly not something that would be accepted in any court or formal inquiry.

 

[Oystein]

I don't doubt them, it just really seems odd that Jones wouldn't offer them up if he was positive of their origins and his findings. That's why I said it wouldn't be a bad idea to see if someone could contact the individual with the bag of dust. If we could get a sample of the dust she has then we'd be going around Jones. We'd have the same dust, so in the future the "we had different dust" argument could be trumped. It would be the same dust, from the same person, and if they argue the chain of custody for that dust, they'd be tainting their sample as well.

Jones without doubt is sure of the samples' origin, but not his findings.

If you contact the individuals with the dust, you still don't have a clear chain of custody, because these individuals are laypersons; they did not meticulously document what they were doing when they collected the dust, didn't follow a rigid protocol to ensure they are uncontaminated, didn't assess the dust's state scientifically in situ, etc. You basically only have their word on their (potentially faulty) recollections. That's as good as you can get, and that's as good as Jones got. No sworn affidavit nor videotape can improve on that. You believe them or you don't.


Unless you suspect that Jones somehow manipulated either the individuals or the samples. But that's an allegation I would then like you to support with evidence.

I'll say it again: The fact that a fair interpretation of Jones's, Harrit's, Farrer's own data shows there was paint (Tnemec as well as LaClede), not thermite, is the best corroboration for the originality of the dust samples.



The problem with the Harrit paper is neither the chain of custody of the samples nor the analysis data they drew from them, but their ridiculously faulty conclusions.

 

[chrismohr]

When it says... "NIST then said that there was no "clear chain of custody"... when did NIST comment on their crappy paper?

When researching for my debate with Richard Gage, I asked NIST about the Bentham paper and why they didn't test for thermites etc. In summary, they said 1) the materials found in the dust tests by Harrit et al also appear in the buildings anyway and 2) even if they found thermitic materials, their dust samples don't have a chain of custody. I phoned for more clarification and Michael Newman at NIST told me, "we follow the evidence" and that there was no evidence of thermitics in the dust. I also talked to Kevin Ryan and others close to the Bentham study and I believe they did everything humanly possible to preserve a respectable chain of custody. Jim Millette has a solid chain of custody of WTC dust from several sources and has direct access to all of them in his lab because of past studies he's been hired to partake in.

 

[Miragememories]

When researching for my debate with Richard Gage, I asked NIST about the Bentham paper and why they didn't test for thermites etc. In summary, they said 1) the materials found in the dust tests by Harrit et al also appear in the buildings anyway and 2) even if they found thermitic materials, their dust samples don't have a chain of custody. I phoned for more clarification and Michael Newman at NIST told me, "we follow the evidence" and that there was no evidence of thermitics in the dust. I also talked to Kevin Ryan and others close to the Bentham study and I believe they did everything humanly possible to preserve a respectable chain of custody. Jim Millette has a solid chain of custody of WTC dust from several sources and has direct access to all of them in his lab because of past studies he's been hired to partake in.

And that NIST response did not disturb you?

MM

 

[plague311]

Jones without doubt is sure of the samples' origin, but not his findings.

If you contact the individuals with the dust, you still don't have a clear chain of custody, because these individuals are laypersons; they did not meticulously document what they were doing when they collected the dust, didn't follow a rigid protocol to ensure they are uncontaminated, didn't assess the dust's state scientifically in situ, etc. You basically only have their word on their (potentially faulty) recollections. That's as good as you can get, and that's as good as Jones got. No sworn affidavit nor videotape can improve on that. You believe them or you don't.


Unless you suspect that Jones somehow manipulated either the individuals or the samples. But that's an allegation I would then like you to support with evidence.
I'll say it again: The fact that a fair interpretation of Jones's, Harrit's, Farrer's own data shows there was paint (Tnemec as well as LaClede), not thermite, is the best corroboration for the originality of the dust samples.



The problem with the Harrit paper is neither the chain of custody of the samples nor the analysis data they drew from them, but their ridiculously faulty conclusions.

Nope, I wasn't going that far. I was looking at being able to make it a wash as far as where the samples came from. If Dr. Millette, Jones, and the sample from Ms. MacKinlay all had the same composition then it would be going above and beyond to prove all samples being tested were of the same makeup. Meaning in the future (which I guess will happen either way) the ability for a truther to say "The tests that Dr. Millette ran were not on the dust samples Jones received" would not be an option. At least 1 of the samples that were provided were used as common ground between the 2 papers.

With that being said it was more of just an "above and beyond" thought. However, I am sure that if the samples Dr. Millette is using match the chemical make up that Harrit et al. published then it would be basically the same thing. Oh well, just rambling thoughts off of the top of my head.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

A problem is that all the Twoofers dust passed through Jones. He carried out some scientific looking tests and announced it was Thermite.
Analysis of what he had done shows that his methodology was flawed and his claims cannot be backed up by the test data.
Which leaves them with a lot of dust that has been through the hands of someone who has a great deal to lose if he can be shown conclusively to have been incompetent or even fraudulent.
The Chain of custody for that dust is broken even if it could now be shown that yes it was genuine to start with.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

And that NIST response did not disturb you?

MM

Please explain why it disturbs you?

 

[cjnewson88]

And that NIST response did not disturb you?

MM

Please explain why it disturbs you?

You must understand sheeplenshills, "following the evidence" is a disturbing thing for any truther

 

[Robrob]

Typical CT "woo." Maybe, kind of, sort of analyze chips, maybe from the WTC, maybe not. Announce you've found "thermite." Declare conspiracy solved.

1) How would "thermite paint" have any effect whatsoever on the WTC?

2) Has any steel beam ever been severed by "thermite paint?"

3) Can "thermite paint" do more than perhaps warm up structural steel?

4) How do the CT diferentiate between "thermite" and rusted iron re-bar and oxidized aluminum all commonly found in skyscrapers?

5) Why do the CT loons focus on the maybe, sort of, kind of imaginary thermite paint while completely ignoring the absolute empirical lack of actual explosive residue? You know, from the TONS of explosives needed to drop the WTC?

 

[plague311]

Typical CT "woo." Maybe, kind of, sort of analyze chips, maybe from the WTC, maybe not. Announce you've found "thermite." Declare conspiracy solved.

1) How would "thermite paint" have any effect whatsoever on the WTC?

I guess in all honesty I really don't understand the theory behind "thermite paint". It's suppose to be sprayed on by the pound and then sear the steel when it's ignited? Or just heat it to cause the loss of structural stability

 

[Robrob]

I guess in all honesty I really don't understand the theory behind "thermite paint". It's suppose to be sprayed on by the pound and then sear the steel when it's ignited? Or just heat it to cause the loss of structural stability

I suspect the proponents of the paint theory also "don't understand it." It sounds cool and science-like, similar to "nano-thermite," "free fall acceleration," and "fell in its own footprint." All the claims the CT loons make without ever being able to explain how they are supposed to indicate controlled demolitions or even show they exist in the first place.

 

[The Platypus]

So a few people had obtained and saved samples of dust, stored them for years and then suddenly decided to send them in for analysis, and who do they send them to, Stephen Jones of all people and places, who then claims to have found thermite in the dust and publishes this would be monumental finding in a scam journal, of all places.

How dumb can people be... How could this fraud be anymore obvious???

 

[plague311]

So a few people had obtained and saved samples of dust, stored them for years and then suddenly decided to send them in for analysis, and who do they send them to, Stephen Jones of all people and places, who then claims to have found thermite in the dust and publishes this would be monumental finding in a scam journal, of all places.

How dumb can people be... How could this fraud be anymore obvious???

Like I said before, I am sure that the samples came from the WTC tragedy. The samples seem to match each other. The individual that had the signed affidavit and put the collapse portion of the statement "wtc collapse" seems some what odd.

The biggest thing will be to match the samples that the lab doing our current tests have, with the samples that Harrit et al. used in their tests. There is already some posts in the other thread contesting the chain of custody for the current samples by some troofers. One is even requesting that the chain of custody be released now instead of after the tests.

I have done some research, but can anyone tell me if the chain of custody for the initial samples was released previous to the test results? I am wondering what the standard is for releasing that type of information pre-test release.