"So you agree with the NIST (in their specific response to the Bentham Paper) that "the materials found in the dust tests by Harrit et al also appear in the buildings anyway" but you currently only take issue with the NIST regarding their non-acceptance of the trail of custody?
What perplexes me is why you are so willing to agree with the NIST that "the materials found in the dust tests by Harrit et al also appear in the buildings anyway"?
How could the NIST possibly know that all the materials found in the Dr. Harrit et al WTC dust tests "appear in the buildings anyway", when the NIST never performed the analysis that Dr. Harrit et al did to establish their observations and findings?
FEMA indicated that the WTC dust signature was quite unique, and the authors of the Bentham paper also examined dust from the controlled demolition of a building with similar material construction and found it to be significantly different.
And when you phoned a second time seeking greater clarification, and were giving the response "we follow the evidence" and that there was no evidence of thermitics in the dust", you did not wonder what was the NIST definition of following the evidence?
To categorically state there was no evidence of thermitics in the dust, the NIST would have to have run proper tests. Such conclusive test results would have been published in their 10,000+ page report and would have blown the Bentham Paper out of the water.
It sounds like another example of NIST's arrogant dismissive attitude to me.
No offense intended, but it sounds like they gave you a canned response and a verbal pat on the head."
"I verified NIST's claims independently, and indeed all the materials found in the dust include known materials that were in the buildings. Even Niels Harritt agreed to that, but he claims that they were "configured" in a way that points to thermitic material and not just paint and cladding etc."
Which was what I meant.
Of course a good portion of the periodic table was well represented.
Based on your response and others, I guess I wrongly assumed the point of my question was obvious.
It was the unusual chemistry of the WTC dust which I was specifically referring to.
"I've always wished NIST would have done such a study. When they said "We follow the evidence," they elaborated and said there were no brilliant flashes of light like thermites would put out, no massive explosive sounds, no leftover demolition materials like wires and receivers etc. Not one demolition expert out of the hundreds combing through the debris after the collapses found one piece of evidence for controlled demolition."
What ever happened to 'looking for evidence'?
And you consider the NIST's actions (or lack of), to be a scientific approach to "fully following the evidence"?
Again, I didn't say 'scientific' in my previous remarks as I assumed that as part of NIST's full investigation, they would take a scientific as well as an anecdotal approach to "following the evidence".
There were
"brilliant flashes of light like thermites". I have seen them in the photo/video record which the NIST released under the FOIA, and there is eyewitness firefighter testimony reporting such activity.
There were
"massive explosive sounds". Richard Gage produced a 15 minute video specifically addressing the evidence of explosions.
"no leftover demolition materials like wires and receivers etc." is an assumption based on the acceptance of previous assumptions. As we know, there was a great deal of pulverization at the WTC and aside from the more durable structural materials, the vast majority of the WTC contents were unrecognizable. There is no reason to believe receivers would be recognizable. Of the thousands of telephones and computers, none/or extremely few of them were recognizable in the aftermath. By wires, I assume you mean detcord? Well it has not been established that detonation cord (explosive-filled plastic tubing) was required. Again, any remnants would likely have been well pulverized.
You appear all to willing to defer to government authority on these questions Chris.
"Should NIST have done a study for thermitic materials? I would have liked to have seen that. Rather than complain about them, however, we all got together and found someone who could do exactly that. Stay tuned for the results of a rather major peer-reviewed study. Ain't it great that this is getting such serious attention?"
Certainly the NIST have the funding and resources necessary to fully investigate for thermitic material and thus eliminate them as a possible cause.
But the the NIST had the cause explanation they wanted, and they only pursued the evidence that would support that favored hypothesis.
People ask; "but what possible motive would a major government run organization like the NIST have for not fully investigating thermitic materials in the WTC dust.?"
The answer is simple.
If the NIST's politically appointed upper management authorized such a thorough investigation, they risked a finding that could not be casually dismissed, and which would have serious political repercussions. It is one thing to administer control over hundreds of staff working on different puzzle pieces, but when investigating scientists make a unique finding of nanothermite permeating the WTC dust, any kind of administrative coverup becomes untenable.
So when giving everything due consideration, you might want to ask yourself Chris.
Do you want to be remembered as a propagandist, or an honest investigative journalist?
MM
