an observation about the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7

How about actually doing some research instead of making knee-jerk claims? You have the report: read it and educate yourself.

 

I can only conclude after over a year of seeking this INFORMATION
that NOBODY has a pointer to the data, because it doesn't exist!
in the years since this "report" has been compiled, NOBODY has
extracted the relevant bit(s) and made links out of them so as to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the FBI indeed did its job and investigated and found no trace of explosives at ground zero.

I would think that the debunker faction would jump at the chance
of showing the "truthers" how wrong they are, but in this case, there is very strong evidence for the alleged report on explosives being only that the alleged report, its not real.

Just another way in witch 9/11/2001 was a very poorly documented disaster.

 

It's an extremely well-documented and researched event. Ignoring the things you don't like won't change them.

 

so why is there no specific link to the part that speaks to the explosives issue? When on-line searches on "PENTTBOM - Explosives" yields nothing from the FBI but a plethora of bits from commentators who complain about the lack of proper investigation on this subject.

WHY is it that an outsider, that is:
Dr. Niels Harrit, an Associate Professor at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, for 37 years, actually takes on the job of looking into this matter properly?

What about our own laboratories & experts, looking into this, and indeed documenting what they found and making that documentation available to the public.

 

MIT, Purdue, Oxford ... etc., etc. ... all over the world, multiple investigations and inquiries ... all publicly available. None of them found evidence of explosives. Including Harrit, who attempted to call paint an explosive.

 

How many of these prestigious institutions had access to samples of the dust from ground zero? The USGS had samples and did not test for explosives and leaves it as an open question as to why there are iron microspheres in the dust. Dr. Harrit had samples and indeed tested these samples and concluded that these chips are thermite. what evidence do you have that these chips were indeed paint?

 

If you think his conclusion was thermite, you haven't read his paper, either. You might take the time to see what your Dr. Harrit actually proposes.

They ALL had access to the dust samples.

 

So MIT, Stanford, Berkeley ....... etc ..... all had access to samples
of the ground zero dust? OK, and nobody found the red/grey chips that Dr. Harrit reported? ...... there is something seriously kinkie about this whole scene.

 

Of course they did. Paint and primer were used extensively in the WTC. They recognized it as paint chips, which is what they were, and didn't make up fantastic, unsupported claims.

 

"paint" chips that have the reactive properties of thermitic materials.
great!

 

What are those properties? (And ... do you know what 'thermitic' means?)

 

There is both a reduction and oxidation going on in the reaction
the oxygen leaves the Iron and goes to the Aluminum and in that
reaction there is an abundance of heat produced that leaves behind
the iron microspheres that are a characteristic of the Ground Zero dust.

 

'Iron microspheres' are present where cutting torches are used.

Nice try.

 

What about the paint chips? THAT'S what the question was about, so stop trying to change the subject.

 

Nice try but there were samples taken before any clean up operations were in progress and the USGS examined the sample(s) and found Iron Microspheres and did not address why they were there, if the explanation was as simple as the cutting torches used at ground zero, why did the not say that?

 

Cutting the steel started the DAY OF during rescue operations. What about the paint chips, bob?

 

are paint chips red/grey and have chemically energetic properties?

 

How exactly do you know WHEN Harrit gathered the samples?

His chain of evidence dealing with the so called 'samples' was laughable

 

Yep. Red on one side and grey (primer) on the other. "chemically energetic properties" simply means it burns under specific conditions.

Harrit won't let anyone confirm his samples. Why do you suppose that is?

 

Funny you should ask that genericBob.

They supposedly had paint chips from the dust, but didn't test them. Why not?

Are you aware of James Millette's paper which found different chips where Harrit said there were only supposed to be thermitic chips?

 

There may indeed have been all sorts of "chips" in the dust,
however, the paint materials were supposed to be of a fire retardant
nature and not supply fuel to a fire, so why is it that chips alleged to
be paint, exhibit a reactive nature?

The other bit, and people can complain about methods ( etc.... )
all they want but the iron micro-spheres are present in samples of
dust taken at the Brooklyn bridge ( etc.... ) and these samples were
too remote from ground zero to have been contaminated by torch work.
The iron micro-spheres are a considerable piece of evidence in that
the ONLY way they could have been made, is by the melting of steel or iron, and then subjecting the molten material to forces sufficient to make it form tiny drops and fall a significant distance while it solidified so as to create a sphere. It is logical to conclude that material from the greatest height up the tower, traveled the furthest from the tower, so then if samples from the Brooklyn bridge, clearly contain iron microspheres, then the action must have been going on very early on, if not from the very beginning of the event. That is the action of there being sufficient heat to melt iron, and the explosive event to scatter the tiny drops of molten material outward so as to constitute the iron microspheres found in the dust.

 

Source for this claim, or did you make it up?

Links, please.

 

You don't seem to understand.

Harrit took dust samples and extracted red/gray chips using a magnet. He then tested those chips (randomly I might add) and deemed ALL OF THEM as thermitic.

James Millette extracted the same types of chips using the red/gray layer and magnetic criteria Harrit used above and found different chips. Harrit's paper concluded that any chip of the above criteria was thermitic.

This proves Harrit's paper wrong.

 

So throw out the baby with the bath .....
or?

The bottom line here is did any of this testing uncover any evidence of explosives or accelerant in the WTC dust? and if there is indication of any such materials in the dust, how did they get there and shouldn't this be the subject of a much more extensive investigation?

 

No. It didn't.