Mike Ruppert on Nanothermite
The following was posted yesterday (4-21-09) on http://mikeruppert.blogspot.com and some comments on it, including two by Mike Ruppert, were added the comments page for that day.
*********************************************************************************
From Jenna Orkin:
A few days ago, Businessman sent in the following comment:
Great article, Jenna! Since you brought up the subject of 9/11 and scientific panels, here's a 10-minute video from Denmark featuring an interview with scientist Niels Harrit, stating they've now determined through scientific testing of the WTC dust, that there were more than 10 tons of thermite explosives in the World Trade Center: Click Here for the Video ********************************************************************************
JO's response:
Businessman, if you were not the wonderful loyal helpful guy you are, I would have just rejected your comment. But you're Businessman, so I clicked on the video and was impressed to see that the nanothermite boondoggle has been awarded over ten minutes on a Danish news channel.
Not a prominent channel, it seems, for its hits on google are unimpressive, as are the other outlets that lend time, space and credence to the highly speculative nanothermite venture. But at least the interview was slickly produced.
So a highly engaging ten minutes ensued, reminiscent of those puzzles in which you have to spot what's wrong with the picture.
Without devoting too much time to the shortcomings of this bit of junk science, ask yourselves these questions (if you entertain the matter at all, which we are not recommending:)
How does the scientist concerned, Niels Harrit (Is he a Ph.D? There's little sign of it) know that there was ten to a hundred tons of nanothermite in the World Trade Center debris? Who found it? Where is it now? The debris was removed to Fresh Kills in Staten Island as well as to Third World countries ASAP. Is Harrit just assuming there was ten to a hundred tons (give or take an order of magnitude) because that's what he thinks it would take to demolish the buildings?
He says the nanothermite was discovered "by chance" a short while ago. What kind of chance is it when scientists beg for dust samples for years so they can test it for said nanothermite? Every couple of months I used to get their emails. I never complied because the science would not have been valid; the chain of custody was broken. And mind you, the requests were for a few measly samples, not ten to a hundred tons. All of this, by the way, ignores the myriad scientists (Millette, Lioy, Yiin....) who, whether well-intentioned or not, were studying the dust for pollutants.
So Harrit didn't know any of this? Does he know the other scientists working on this wild goose chase? But the best part was the dead silence when the politely incredulous journalist didn't know what to say next because the only reasonable response was, "Huh?"
While only cursory, this response is intended to quash speculation about issues which at this point can never be proved. It is not intended to open up the floodgates to further questions. Harrit is either a loony patsy or pure disinfo. But it's enlightening to see what's getting into the European media so thank you for the link.
*********************************************************************************
There were several comments on the comment page, and here's one by Ruppert:
*********************************************************************************
BUSINESSMAN -- You've been so valuable but what you're doing now is a major distraction that cannot contibute to what's most important for all of us.
The building demolition crap will not be injected into my list -- ever. From a legal standpoint nothing of what your posts are about is legally admissible evidence and proves nothing. Even if thermite were used, this so-called evidence (which wouldn't be considered by any court) does nothing to prove who put it there does it?
This is a distraction I won't permit. Your intelligence and loyatly and friendship are valued here. But the timing of this is highly suspect to me. If Jenna doesn't stop posting this thread I will.
I learned a long time ago that if COINTELPRO isn't nipped in the bud early it gets real "expensive" later on.
Go back and read FTW and what I wrote about physical evidence for the last eight years. Did you read Rubicon?
That's the last 9/11 physical evidence post I'll allow here. There are many other places more suitable for that. This is a blog that does things.
MCR
- phredo's blog
- Login to post comments
Well, jig's up for Ruppert.
Now I'm not so sure that Ruppert ever really quit working for the man;
http://www.whale.to/b/ruppert1.html
"I was first recruited when I was a senior at UCLA. The Agency flew me to Washington and said: "Mike, we want you to become a CIA case officer. You've already interned for LAPD for three years, you interned for the chief, your family was CIA, your mother was NSA. We want you to go back to the LAPD, and being an LAPD cop will just be your cover." - Mike Ruppert, 2001.
EDIT - 4.29.2009 - Actually, I've often wondered about Ruppert's dogged insistence about controlled demolition not being a legitimate avenue for 9/11 research. His position was started early, and had nothing to do with court-room worthiness of evidence. He was denying claims of explosive-related collapses starting on 9/13/2001 - earlier than any "debunker". Who among you was even talking "controlled demoliton on 9/11" back in 2001? At all? But on 9/13? I know I wasn't;
Regarding Ruppert's contribution to the Contra/Cocaine scenario; whole lotta hearsay, not much meat and potatoes. Yet, this is the foundation on which he stood as he presented his materials to us, convinced a lot of people to subscribe to his newsletter, and ultimately wrote a book on Peak Oil. A definite lack of "physical evidence" to back up Rupperts' claims on the Contra situation, one could say, which allowed the DOJ to brush off his claims thus;
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9712/ch04p1.htm (Sec.5. Allegations from Other Sources - c. Allegations by Michael Ruppert)
"Based on our review, we believe that while Ruppert communicates his allegations fervently, they have no firm anchor in reality."
What a disappointment
I used to consider Ruppert the best researcher out there. Until today. What a devastatingly stupid display of ignorance and bias.
Here are my objections to Orkin's and Ruppert's arrogant drivel:
(*) "Nanothermite boondoggle" -
Pardon me? It's a patented substance since ~1999, is it not? Yes or no?
(*) "Not a prominent channel, it seems, for its hits on google are unimpressive, as are the other outlets that lend time, space and credence to the highly speculative nanothermite venture. But at least the interview was slickly produced." (...) "Without devoting too much time to the shortcomings of this bit of junk science, ask yourselves these questions (if you entertain the matter at all, which we are not recommending:)"
What? You think a channel is "not prominent" because there aren't many Google hits? How about asking some Danes for a conclusive answer about that? Talk about jumping to conclusions. High speculative venture? How the hell is forensic proof a "highly speculative venture"? What about the RJ Lee report? The USGS report? The temperature gap? The molten iron dripping from the South Tower? The environmental anomalies? The rubble pile still smoldering and burning at times even well into 2002?!
What about the firefighter oral histories? Reports of molten metal? Pictures of metal ripped apart, twisted, bent and discolored (IOW, blown up by explosives)? Severe high temperature corrosion attacks? The "meteorite"? The media reports? Willie Rodriguez? Kevin McPadden? Scott Forbes? Architects and engineers for 911 truth, now including multiple ex-WTC designers? David Chandler's research and successful plight for amendment of the NIST report? All this is just the tip of the Everest among icebergs.
(*) "How does the scientist concerned, Niels Harrit (Is he a Ph.D? There's little sign of it) know that there was ten to a hundred tons of nanothermite in the World Trade Center debris?"
Little sign? Whatever Jenna. How does he know there must have been tons of nanothermite in the World Trade Center?! Because he took the weight percentage of nanothermite chips in the dust and multiplied it with the estimated amount of WTC dust produced! Hello?! Think McFly, think!
(*) "Who found it? Where is it now?"
Most of it settled in Manhattan and the rivers around it. Some of it settled in the lungs of now dying first responders. Having mysteriously finely pulverized concrete in your lungs is no picnic.
(*) "What kind of chance is it when scientists beg for dust samples for years so they can test it for said nanothermite? Every couple of months I used to get their emails. I never complied because the science would not have been valid; the chain of custody was broken."
Beg? They requested. Now I want some proof of your accusation the chain of custody was broken. As far as I know, the CoC was taken care of. Stop lying to aggrandize yourself.
(*) "And mind you, the requests were for a few measly samples, not ten to a hundred tons."
Repeating more hollow rhetoric, Jenna?
(*) "All of this, by the way, ignores the myriad scientists (Millette, Lioy, Yiin....) who, whether well-intentioned or not, were studying the dust for pollutants."
So? Did they put a magnet over the dust? Did they perform XEDS tests on what they found? What were the results of their inquiries anyway?
(*) "So Harrit didn't know any of this? Does he know the other scientists working on this wild goose chase? But the best part was the dead silence when the politely incredulous journalist didn't know what to say next because the only reasonable response was, "Huh?""
The journalist doesn't act that way at all. Should this arrogant, ignorant, biased drivel be dignified with a response? No.
(*) "While only cursory, this response is intended to quash speculation about issues which at this point can never be proved." (...) "Harrit is either a loony patsy or pure disinfo."
Cursory? Abysmally short-sighted would be a more appropriate description. These articles have been peer reviewed and proved, and continue to be proved, even in the face of hardcore gatekeepers like you and Mike. You don't have a brain for the scientific method Jenna. All you have is copycat geopolitical talk from Mike Ruppert, in fact, recently most of what you do is the posting of collections of links to news articles. You're nothing more than an inefficient analogue RSS feed.
--- On to Mike "If it's not legally admissible, it doesn't matter" Ruppert
(*) "From a legal standpoint nothing of what your posts are about is legally admissible evidence and proves nothing. Even if thermite were used, this so-called evidence (which wouldn't be considered by any court) does nothing to prove who put it there does it?"
Is that so? Then how come the FBI ended up on the doorstep of Fort Detrick in the anthrax case? By coincidence? In this case, who else but the military was manufacturing such nanoexplosives in 2001? I think we again end up on the doorstep of some military research facility. We'll see how much it proves and how much it doesn't. My gut feeling is that it proves a hell of a lot more than the abstract geopolitical case you made in "Crossing The Rubicon".
(*) "This is a distraction I won't permit." (...) "the timing of this is highly suspect to me." (...) "I learned a long time ago that if COINTELPRO isn't nipped in the bud early it gets real "expensive" later on."
Suspect timing? It's right after the publication of the scientific article. You are losing it Mike. Contrary to what you may think, not everybody is interested in your book release. Indiscriminate paranoia gets "real expensive" at any point in your life.
(*) "Go back and read FTW and what I wrote about physical evidence for the last eight years. Did you read Rubicon?"
I don't know about "Businessman", but I sure read your book. It was excellent, however narrowly confined to topics you deemed "appropriate". However, scientists know a thing or two about physical evidence too. Where would cops be without CSI, Mike?
Is it true that nothing coming from this research could be legally admissible as evidence? That sounds very unlikely.
(*) "That's the last 9/11 physical evidence post I'll allow here. There are many other places more suitable for that. This is a blog that does things."\
Right.
Not many good things, considering your assistant is swiftboating a member of your own blog crowd, and an absolutely essential portion of the 9/11 truth movement. Which side are you on, Mike? Is it just your colossal ego getting in the way or is it something more sinister than that?
Lame response dude.
A couple of the comments below are fair. Insinuating that Ruppert is an agent is not. It's irresponsible and does not make you look any more reasonable they he does right now.
I support investigating what happened to the towers. I also agree with Ruppert that the physical evidence is a big distraction for many while not all of those interested. It's all about balance, which Ruppert's comments don't seem to maintain.
However, he is consistent. He hasn't changed his position and I don't think any of us should act shocked at his comments. I also don't think that we should disrespect him or his past work for this cause simply because he's so adamant about excluding the physical evidence.
If you make room for extremists like Alex Jones you should be able to deal with, if not like, the opposite extreme. Someone who won't get anywhere near speculation.
It's not so cut and dry as that, but maybe someone here gets my point?
At some point
"A time comes when silence is betrayal."
Ruppert and Physical evidence
"Some advocates who want to push the physical evidence arguments have construed my failure to make additional reports as evidence of the fact that I am somehow a co-conspirator with the government in the 9/11 attacks and their cover-up. This is merely misplaced rage at something that is visible and accessible -- me. Some, quite correctly, have produced voluminous research showing that the melting point of steel - as originally reported by the BBC on September 12th, changed over the course of the next several days. It officially rose from 800 degrees centigrade to almost 2000 degrees centigrade and explanations about jet fuel being the cause of the collapse became harder to accept. I never read these stories, and was unaware of them until last week. I had already chosen my course of action and was devoting all my energies to that research.
I concede now that the melting point of steel is not 800 degress centigrade, as the BBC told us. It is much higher. And it is indeed questionable whether the fuel from flights 11 and 175 could have caused the collapse. This has never been a point of contention with me, although I can see how some might have thought it was.
[...]
What I believe is that on Septmeber 11th, many of the alleged hijackers were likely not even aboard the planes, and that it is possible that they were flown via (existing and well-documented) remote control technology. I believe that none of the alleged hijackers had acquired the proficiency required to perform the complicated maneuvers used. I do not accept the government's version of the collapses of the towers and WTC 7, and I believe that those collapses were caused by artificial means other than the aircraft collisions."
The Kennedys, Physical Evidence, and 9/11
by Michael C. Ruppert
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/112603_kennedy.html
If you want to understand Rupert's position on physical evidence, I strongly recommend you read this article. I will quote a few relevant passages.
"There is a reason why I opened my video The Truth and Lies of 9/11 with a single segment from the Zapruder film, shot on November 22, 1963. It shows that with the fatal head shot, JFK's body was pushed backwards and not forwards. In the simplest laws of physics this means one thing and one thing only; the shot was fired from JFK's front and hence, not by Oswald. The media conditioning - the "Mighty Wurlitzer" described by the CIA's legendary Frank Wisner - has done its job again. Anything that simple couldn't be true."
...
There's a big difference between JFK's front-to-back motion and the magic bullet. One cannot be nullified by a multitude of experts, and one has been. One was ignored (as far as I could tell) on the fortieth anniversary of JFK's assassination, and one was addressed ad nauseum and in often conflicting ways. The key is the experts and the amount of money, time and resources that can and will be brought to bear to gridlock the issue in the mind of the public.
...
There is a mountain of physical evidence that blows the government story in my mind, but my experience says that it will never penetrate the consciousness of the American people in a way that will bring about change. What will penetrate, from my experience, is taking non-scientific reports that most people instantly accept as credible, whether news reports or government statements or documents, and merely showing that they are lies. That opens the wedge, and removes any reliance upon expert or scientific testimony which is typically used to confuse simple facts. From there, you can begin to show people all the other documentary evidence of foreknowledge, planning and participation."
Is Mike Ruppert not correct here? The "parading of experts" has and will continue. The Mainstream media will always be opposed to 9/11 claims. What Ruppert is arguing is that physical evidence arguments will always be "debunked" by paid shills and experts, and that's what we have continued to see on every 9/11 truth hit piece, and newspaper article. I think a lot of Ruppert's points on "physical evidence" have a lot of validity and we have to understand the "paid expert" phenomenon and how it is used to paint the 9/11 truth movement as "conspiracy theorists".
Philip Zelikow understood the concept of "public perceptions" and manipulating the public. We as a 9/11 truth movement have to understand this concept and develop effective strategies to counter the MSM propaganda machine.
I do not support Ruppert's recent comments on nanothemite, but to expect Rupert to change his stance on physical evidence, is not consistant with his point of view that there will always be paid shills to muddy the issue of 9/11 truth in the eyes of the public.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog
I'm not willing
to give Ruppert a pass on this gatekeeper behavior. Why are you? Because he is a prolific researcher? WTC demolition research is at the heart, at the core of truth seeking. I will not and cannot accept the rampant gatekeeperism he and his followers have displayed on this issue. Ruppert is lying by omission. Have Ruppert talk to the first responders dying of inhaling toxic dust. Dust created by explosives.
Ruppert is not a scientist.
Therefore, it doesn't matter what he says about the chips, scientifically speaking. As for chain of custody considerations, etc., that is a different story. He's certainly entitled to have an opinion that matters, on that score.
It's too bad he didn't just stick to the sort of stuff he's good at.
As for the scientific conclusions regarding the red/gray chips, that properly belongs to the relevant scientific communities, as a whole, and not the 911 Truth community, or just Harrit, et. al. Which is one reason it doesn't make sense to waste too much energy discussing Ruppert. That time and energy could be spent taking a trip to a local university, copies in hand, and delivering them to materials scientists and physical chemists. I guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of scientists in the relevant fields will not discover the paper, on their own. Nobody is going to make regular reading of a journal which has been out less than 2 years.
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org
That's an irresponsible statement, IMHO
Disagreement about theories, tactics or strategy doesn't make people agents. Yes it's possible--anything's bloody possible--but without evidence its just an unproductive distraction that stirs up bad feeling.
______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
http://truthaction.org/forum/
http://www.911blacklist.org/
Nipping Cointelpro "in the bud"?
"The last physical evidence post I'll allow." "This [meaning his own] is a blog that does things." "this bit of junk science."
Are there any more slams that Ruppert can think of?
I had thought that his original work on the air defense stand-down was good. (Is this true?)
So what's with this guy? I've also heard him put down another person that didn't deserve it. Is he just bitter at the other people who are now getting a little attention?
It sure is bizarre how a few of our (formerly) best people dig such deep holes for themselves.
I've just informed Mr. Ruppert and Ms. Orkin
that unless they reconsider their position and, at least, take a neutral position; I will no longer recommend Crossing The Rubicon to anyone.
Not that they care, but their statements are absurd and intellectually dishonest.
While Mr. Ruppert's "chain of custody" concerns do have some validity (Let's hope the EPA and USGS have not dumped their samples), in light of the developing evidence and growing credible links to individuals, companies and government organizations, his legally based argument is no longer tenable, imo.
Taking a neutral position on this issue would be the honest and honorable thing to do.
Mr. Ruppert had claimed to have "retired" from the fight for 9/11 truth, too bad he didn't keep his word on that.
I don't think he works for the other side, this is just his particular ego dysfunction exhibiting itself again.
Too bad, he was once a great asset to 9/11 truth and to the country he claims to love.
His story is far from over, imo.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Ignominious...
and strangely suspect.
How disappointing.
Unbelievable.
These are the most embarrassing comments on the paper that I've yet read. Mike and Jenna are not even pretending to know a damn thing about the study, they're just celebrating their own ignorance. And, inevitably, in the comment section Mark Robinowitz ("M" is almost definitely him) chimes in with this gem: "Nanothermite seems about as real as the 'hologram' claim that used to infest the suburbs of the 'truth' movement some years ago", which is possibly the most self-discrediting thing he's ever written, and goes on to once again reveal that he doesn't even know the official WTC 7 collapse explanation by babbling about the heavy damage it allegedly sustained. That's so awfully painful to read, I couldn't cringe harder.
And at the same time it's terribly sad, because all three of them have done important work in the past. "The Truth & Lies of 9/11" is still one of the best 9/11 videos, if not the best. I really used to admire Mike. And Robinowitz's site "Oil Empire" has always been very valuable, too. But now they seem to have lost touch with reality completely and to have turned into blind anti-demolition zealots. I think there might be psychological issues involved: All these years they've been telling us, sometimes condescendingly, sometimes aggressively, that CD couldn't be proved anyway and that we should therefore ignore it completely - and now that proof seems closer than ever before, they're having public nervous breakdowns. Especially Ruppert couldn't bear to be proven wrong.
And Ruppert is being proven wrong on a lot of things nowadays. I stopped reading his blog some months ago after his 100th or so wild prediction that totally missed the mark, only to be followed by one of his usual "I've always been right about everything, I don't know how I do it, I must have supernatural powers" [paraphrased] comments. One year ago I felt deep admiration for him. Now I only pity him.
______________
Spuren von Sprengstoff im Staub des World Trade Centers gefunden
Interesting:
One of FTW's senior editors mentioned on website of "Improbable Collapse"
JAMEY HECHT
is the author of Plato's Symposium: Eros and the Human Predicament, the translator of the Three Theban Plays by Sophocles, a painter, a poet, and a rapper who produced a hip-hop tribute to Robert Kennedy. Hecht is also the senior staff writer for From the Wilderness publications, the newsletter of Michael Ruppert (copvcia.com).
Additionally, I'm quite sure I heard him say:
"Why are there questions been ignored, we believe we owe it to the victims and their surviving family members, to conduct a searching and fearless examination of the events of 9/11, from a number of different angles, and to pursue it wherever it leads. We know of no better way to honor the fallen than to marshal our forces, intellectual, emotional, and confront what repels us; dark implications, of evidence which it's all too easy to put aside. We hope that as you draw your own conclusions, we can aim together at a more complete account of those events"
This is or was a senior editor of From The Wilderness and this is what he said. I'm no fan of Jimmy Walter and his disinfo, but given the words of Hecht there, you'd expect him to follow his own advice.
Ruppert is smart, ethical, and often full of crap
See http://metamars.blogspot.com/
I don't think he really knows anything about, oh, let's call it exotic technologies. I have a friend who was being followed around after downloading patent information on a claim (I think related to the report about the Japanese company who was going to use it to power cars) related to using water to create energy. I probably shouldn't say anything more about that - and trust me, there's more to tell. Suffice it to say that Ruppert would say it's all a sham, even if the NY Times reported it as true, and going into production next year.
(For anyone who is interested, there's more to water than what you learned in chemistry class. E.g., there was an article in American Scientist about water, IIRC in 2006, describing experiments that showed that water molecules that had been located in a particular nook or cranny of a DNA molecule was somehow different than water molecules which had been located in a different part of the DNA. )
I've also known about brutal tactics used to suppress cheap alternatives to oil and gas, for quite a while. See my comment in the blog post The Obama Campaign Is Out of Our Hands.
There's also been a recent positive report about cold fusion.
I certainly have never gotten the impression that either technology or mathematics are Ruppert's strong suit. E.g., he continually talks about a peak as though it were a cliff. I wish him well, but also recommend that he only makes pronouncements about stuff that he a) knows about and b) understands.
The people who will properly be able to critique the nanothermite paper are materials scientists and physical chemists. And probably not all of them, either. I asked a university, Ph.D. physicist about the difference between a regular DSC and micron level DSC, and he didn't know what a DSC was, period!
Instead of worrying what Mike Ruppert has to say about the nanothermite paper, 911 truthers should be taking the paper to people who can actually understand it. A good screening question is "Do you know what a DSC is, and how to interpret XEDS plots?" If a professor can't answer these questions knowledgeably, you've knocked on the wrong door.
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org
Mike Ruppert is coherent with himself ...
MCR has always said that he does not believe science is the way to "prove" 9/11 was an inside job. Referring to Kennedy's magic bullet, he thinks that whatever scientific proof can be provided before a jury, there will always be "scientists" to assert that the proof is not really a proof and that the observed the fact is indeed perfectly consistent with the framework of the official theory. This because the other side has virtually infinite financial means.
I think his remarks should be understood in this light. May be he is wrong on this point. At least I hope so but I do not think his point of view is completely stupid. Then it is clear that he has a tendency to easily dismiss what he does not agree with.
He is however right when he says that a weakness of the paper is the chain of custody of the samples. What will happen if we discover that they have been doctored and that Harritt's and co were mislead in one way or another ? But may be the usefulness of the paper is not that it can serve as a proof before a court but more as an incentive for other scientists to have a new look at the events of that day.
Right, however
It wasn't doctored. Steven Jones et al. did not sit around building nanothermite. Consider the temperature gap: molten iron, molten molybdenum (RJ Lee, USGS), the environmental anomalies, the molten steel witnesses and artefacts, the molten metal seen pouring out of the South Tower. There was an exothermic reaction period. Michael Ruppert is wrong, period.
About that chain of custody issue, I quote from the paper as an example:
Another sample was collected from the apartment building at 16
Hudson Street by Mr. Jody Intermont at about 2 pm on 9/12/2001.
Two small samples of this dust were simultaneously sent to
Dr. Jones and to Kevin Ryan on 2/02/2008 for analysis. Intermont
sent a signed affidavit with each sample verifying that he had
personally collected the (now-split) sample; he wrote:
“This dust, which came from the ‘collapsed’
World Trade Center Towers, was collected from
my loft at the corner of Reade Street and Hud-
son Street on September 12, 2001. I give per-
mission to use my name in connection to this
evidence”. [Signed 31 January 2008 in the pres-
ence of a witness who also signed his name].
Btw, the red/gray chips aren't paint. They do not contain zinc. Paint is not highly exothermic/explosive. Even if it was paint, then we would be discussing why the World Trade Center's paint exhibits explosive/exothermic characteristics.
What is proof and what is not proof will be decided in a court of law. Ruppert and Orkin don't know what the hell they're talking about. So read the paper thoroughly. Don't rely on my quotes. I understand the nuance you intend to make about Ruppert's statements, but I take a slightly less favorable stance toward his blog's recent flurry of ignorant jabs.
Yours sincerely, up and until this recent tragic development an avid fan and student of Mike Ruppert's work.
P.S. Some people say explosions can't be heard when the WTC fell. Two things about that: (1) Nanothermite is purposefully more silent than conventional explosives (see "impulse management" in the paper), and (2) In the Naudet documentary, the collapse of the ST is captured from the lobby of the NT. Many explosions are heard as the ST comes down. (Ofcourse, we are supposed to believe these explosions are caused by Bazant's 'piledriver' collapse, I am extremely skeptical of that claim.)
I read the paper
And I know that the paper describes precisely where, when and by whom the samples have been collected. But is this acceptable before a court of law ? I am not sure of this. It might well be rejected because there is now reason to simply trust the sources ...
May be the other claims of MCR are just insulting for the study and the researchers. And I find this regrettable. But as I read his book, I remember that he insisted that convicting elements must stand before a court or they are not worth much. At least this is his point of view.
So now, what would be needed is that the study done by Harritt & Co should be reproduced on samples which where collected by governmental agencies so that there origin is undebatable and the chain of custody is certified. This should not be so difficult provided such samples exist. What could trigger such a procedure ?
I would not sideline with MCR on the fact that the study is worth nothing. It has a great educational and communicative power. But I would not dismiss MCR's claim that it won't weight much before a court of law. It is nearly impossible to prove that the samples studied were genuine.
What is your basis
for the claims that:
(1) It is nearly impossible to prove that the samples studied were genuine
(2) It wouldn't hold up in court?
Furthermore what makes you think RJ Lee's samples will hold up in court? Because their word is worth more? Maybe they injected iron-rich spheres in there. Maybe they peed all over it. Who knows.
What makes you think Ruppert's claims will hold up in court? They'll hold up because we like him as a researcher? Because he used to be a DA? Qualitative assumptions about usefulness of evidence based on supposed authority on the subject are useless. I am convinced the group of scientists behind journalof911studies and ae911truth can make the case. Has NIST tested for explosives or has it not? Has it lied about molten metal or has it not? Has it fraudulently claimed WTC 7 did not exhibit freefall or not? NIST investigators can be charged and convicted for various offenses today, if there was such a thing as an uncorrupted justice system. Lack of proof is something we don't have.
Glad to see though, that we now all agree that the stj911 group was right all along. And as expected, everybody now suddenly starts to question if the samples are genuine. After all, what other avenue is there for people to stay in denial?
Peace.
I am not denial
"And as expected, everybody now suddenly starts to question if the samples are genuine. After all, what other avenue is there for people to stay in denial?"
You misunderstand me if you think I am a debunker. I do not claim that the samples are not genuine. I am convinced the people who collected them and those who studied them did an honest job. I just claim that it is not possible to PROVE that they are indeed genuine without relying on trust ... which would, I think, not be accepted in court.
I have been convinced that the towers were brought down by demolition for a long long time simply because there is no other reasonable explanation of the way they fell. And of course, this could only have been done by people from within the US security apparatus. But that does not say who precisely.
The fact than I am convinced must not prevent me from being able to see the potential legal weaknesses of the proofs the 9/11 truth movement tries to provide.
Good point. Good post.
The provenance of the samples is not all that strong. The samples were collected by witnesses with no formal training in gathering evidence. Sworn testimony about the methods and circumstances of collection isn't all that impressive from a legal standpoint.
For those who don't like the sound of that...look it up. The facts aren't always convenient.
On the other hand I don't think we need to judge the paper solely on the basis of whether or not its can be used in a criminal case. It seems to suggest the need for further inquiry. Ruppert is right, even if we determine that it was a controlled demolition, that doesn't suggest at all who was responsible. But it would get people's attention and possibly be motivation for the criminal case that Ruppert might like to see happen.
Folks, let's not be cheer leaders. None of this is cut and dry and the people with a cautionary moderate voice shouldn't be made to feel insecure about their willingness to see both sides.
Bad Point. Bad Post.
"The provenance of the samples is not all that strong."
Who says?
"The samples were collected by witnesses with no formal training in gathering evidence. Sworn testimony about the methods and circumstances of collection isn't all that impressive from a legal standpoint."
Nothing matters. Nobody is important.
"For those who don't like the sound of that...look it up. The facts aren't always convenient."
I agree, wholeheartedly.
"Ruppert is right, even if we determine that it was a controlled demolition, that doesn't suggest at all who was responsible."
Who was capable of producing nano-thermite on a mass scale in 2001? Al Qaeda?
"Folks, let's not be cheer leaders. None of this is cut and dry and the people with a cautionary moderate voice shouldn't be made to feel insecure about their willingness to see both sides. "
Yes it is. It's cut and dry. The WTC was brought down with (among other things) high-tech military grade nano-explosives. Period. It's as if you say: "This woman isn't pregnant, she's moderately pregnant." Forensics don't work that way, sorry. There is no moderate. There is no "both sides". There are lies and there are facts. Deal with it.
Like I said, now that the proof is indisputable, people are calling the source of the samples into question. RJ Lee report? Molten steel? USGS? Molten molybdenum? Molten steel pouring from the South Tower? Can you say: temperature gap? Your objections are that of someone who is in severe denial. A proper court of law would convict NIST of fraud and scientific misconduct, high treason, even. Don't get me started.
How about doing your damn job.
ABEL: ... what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?
NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.
ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?
NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time....
--Conversation between a reporter and a NIST spokesperson.
Jim Hoffman
Meh...
You seem to be so uncritically cheerleading it's kind of embarrassing to me. We aren't here to defend an hypothesis or a paper or a activist or an organization, but to support a movement. I stand behind what I said above. You seem to be responding like I'm a debunker just because I'm not on the bandwagon. I know some of my peers might not like what I've said, but I'm brave enough to think for myself and say what I think it true. And you can feel free to disagree. But leave the defensive posturing and territoriality at the door. It doesn't help.
I understand
but whenever it's worth it, I will stand up for it.
The use of ad hominem attacks
is hardly a scientific or even an educated response. Demeaning Prof. Harrit, an expert in nano-chemistry, reflects on the person doing the demeaning.
Orkin: "Harrit is either a loony patsy or pure disinfo. " "How does the scientist concerned, Niels Harrit (Is he a Ph.D? There's little sign of it) know that there was ten to a hundred tons of nanothermite in the World Trade Center debris? Who found it? Where is it now? "\\
If she would trouble herself to READ the paper before making such deprecatory ad hominems, she would have several answers. But alas, she is willing to tear down a researcher without bothering to read the peer-reviewed paper or even to learn who the co-authors are.
Ruppert also would do well to read the paper before sitting back and taking cheap pot-shots at it.
Ruppert: "Even if thermite were used, this so-called evidence "... Pls, the paper distinguishes clearly between thermite and nano-thermite -- and the hard evidence is for nano-thermite. It is clear Ruppert has not read.
I do not value casting doubt by someone who will not even read a scientific paper which has the imprimatur of peer review. Reading will show the provenience of the samples and the careful checks made for consistency by the researchers. Further INDEPENDENT checks are being made by other scientists (as alluded to in the paper) and these will be published in due course.
bizarre
it sure pays to keep up with the blogs section- i missed this from not checking it for a while
Orkin's comments make it appear she's unaware the TV interview is in reference to a paper published in a refereed journal.
Ruppert- "building demolition crap"
Ruppert quotes from Crossing the Rubicon:
"Since 7 WTC ws not struck by anything and it collapsed so perfectly, as if in a controlled demolition, I believe this was necessary and had been planned in advance with the express intent of destroying the electronic equipment needed to make the precise maneuvers necessary to get the airliners to hit the buildings." (583)
"For a long time I have not believed that the WTC towers collapsed as a result of the impacts. I said from the first days after 9/11 that I had too much experience with the way physical evidence could be manipulated, even inside a courtroom, to waste my time arguing claims that could not be proven as thoroughly and concretely as the ones I have proven here. While I cannot tell the general public, or you who have made so many excellent cases for your positions, how the buildings were brought down, I can certainly now point you to a likely suspect for the requisite studies of what would be required to do it. I found it in a footnote to the Kean Commission report." (590) [referencing 541n1; Port Authority diagrams, FEMA WTC BPS]
Re what hit the Pentagon:
"Since it was based upon evidence that I could not verify as easily as a statement made by Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, or anyone else, I chose not to waste precious time there. I could not personally verify the chain of custody of those films, or that they had not been tampered with. I lack the technical proficiency to judge such things, and I am not an expert in the area of photographic analysis. Flight 77 remains the greatest unsolved mystery of 9/11 but that does not alter my belief in the guilt of the suspects." (581)
Long way from these statements to "building demolition crap". In CTR, Ruppert says he believes 7 was demo'd and doesn't accept the official explanations of the twin towers destruction. He explains that he's not interested in physical evidence as it can be spun in court in front of a jury; difficult to get 12 people to agree on "beyond reasonable doubt" based on the arguments of experts. And it still leaves open the question of who dunnit? He points out that contradictory statements and lies told by prime suspects can be documented and shown to be lies far more directly to a jury, and they directly implicate people likely complicit in 9/11.
"Even if thermite were used, this so-called evidence (which wouldn't be considered by any court) does nothing to prove who put it there does it?"- Ruppert
Sure; but if they were destroyed by demolition, which seems to be the most/only likely explanation, shouldn't a full investigation be conducted into that crime as well?
Why the attacks; "building demolition crap"- instead of just saying he doesn't find the evidence so far compelling, and keep digging? He knows it was controlled demolition. Does he expect people whose background is in physics, chemistry, architecture and engineering to pursue his method, instead of what their expertise is in, when investigating the events of 9/11? Is this simply a huge ego and inability to admit there might be additional avenues?
The Fourteen Points paper took NIST's words and omissions, and disproved their own conclusions. The paper in The Environmentalist used the EPA's own data to make a case for energetic materials. Gourley destroyed the premise of Bazant's BS in 2000 words.
The latest paper 'Active Thermitic Material', based on the work of 9 researchers, met editorial standards at a refereed journal and passed peer-review. If these red-gray chips do what the paper says, it's not realistic to believe all four (six) samples were "contaminated". And plenty of dust samples no doubt exist; including in the possession of RJ Lee Group, FEMA, USGS and others. Why not call for further investigation- as Harrit et al proposed in their paper? Why not call on the scientific community to review the paper and conduct their own research? Why dismiss it as "building demolition crap"?
I don't know what's up with Ruppert, but "building demolition crap" doesn't cut it.
EDIT- If this nanothermite is everything the paper says, the list of labs that could've/did make it must be pretty short- and likely they've got connections to the military.
Criminal investigators got their work cut out for them.
http://911reports.com