Dave World Posted September 14, 2011 Author Posted September 14, 2011 I am willing to withdraw this whole line of thought. Being labeled as a conspiracy theorist does not advance my wish for intelligent discussion. Name calling is childish. If the administrators of Science Forums wish to remove this topic and its posts, I can accept that. I've obviously touched a nerve. Actually a bunch of them. Be calm. Everything is exactly as it appears to be. Citing that pathetic "paper" on Bentham -- Seriously? Which would you like first, the dismantling of their "peer review", or the list of errors in the "paper"? Both
Dave World Posted September 14, 2011 Author Posted September 14, 2011 Regarding the Bentham Open paper, it was an error that it is posted twice. I'll contact administrators and ask that one of the two be removed. I would suggest the visual evidence is not consistent with a carefully engineered, controlled demolition using staged thermite detonations. Thank you for your polite reply. Might I ask why you post in purple? It is not so easy on the eyes. I find black to be boring and impersonal. How about green? It is restful on the eyes.
CaptainPanic Posted September 15, 2011 Posted September 15, 2011 Can you describe a credible scenario that explains how the charges were placed at the location of the impact? Maintenance on cables, pipes or even the buildings' structure itself? I don't know about you, but in my office I just step out for a coffee if the maintenance crews need to do something to my room. And if they do anything in a room where I am not, I just ignore them. Elevator maintenance crews probably never get disturbed by anyone. Please note that I do not advertise this theory of explosives and I respect the emotions of the American people regarding this topic, but I think it would certainly be possible. Difficult, but possible. How strict were the safety regulations to the areas where pipes and cables were running? Could anyone get access to that, or was it severely restricted? And were those running right next to critical structural columns? I find black to be boring and impersonal. How about green? It is restful on the eyes. There's a distinct difference in appearance of a scientific paper and an advertisement. And there are reasons for that. It's up to you whether you make your posts look like a scientific post or an advertisement. Personally, I prefer to close my eyes and cover my ears as soon as I notice an advertisement. I will then quickly scroll away and turn down the volume. And as far as I'm concerned the option of using colors is disabled entirely.
Phi for All Posted September 15, 2011 Posted September 15, 2011 I find black to be boring and impersonal. How about green? It is restful on the eyes. I find it ironic that you find it impersonal while others are telling you it's not easy or comfortable to read. Just saying, no offense. Maintenance on cables, pipes or even the buildings' structure itself? I don't know about you, but in my office I just step out for a coffee if the maintenance crews need to do something to my room. And if they do anything in a room where I am not, I just ignore them. Elevator maintenance crews probably never get disturbed by anyone. Please note that I do not advertise this theory of explosives and I respect the emotions of the American people regarding this topic, but I think it would certainly be possible. Difficult, but possible. I agree. While I don't find the hypothesis of pre-planted explosives entirely credible, this part is definitely the easiest when you think about it. Who really pays attention to workers moving stuff in and out of buildings that large? And any witnesses are easily discredited. "You saw suspicious men with dollies wheeling large crates marked 'office furniture' into the WTC prior to the 911 attack? Hmmm, thank you, we'll look into that...." It does seem likely that any thermite used would have been completely burned in the fire. What would be the cause of excess thermite being found?
Greg Boyles Posted September 15, 2011 Posted September 15, 2011 Maintenance on cables, pipes or even the buildings' structure itself? I don't know about you, but in my office I just step out for a coffee if the maintenance crews need to do something to my room. And if they do anything in a room where I am not, I just ignore them. Elevator maintenance crews probably never get disturbed by anyone. Please note that I do not advertise this theory of explosives and I respect the emotions of the American people regarding this topic, but I think it would certainly be possible. Difficult, but possible. How strict were the safety regulations to the areas where pipes and cables were running? Could anyone get access to that, or was it severely restricted? And were those running right next to critical structural columns? I think it would be considerably more than just difficult. The tower was hit by a plane and was on fire. People streaming down the stairs and elevators below the impacts. Fire crews every where and trying to get up. How would the fake maintenance crews get up in time through the throng of people? Wouldn't it look massively suspicious with a maintenace crew going up under such conditions? How would the fake maintenace crew get past the impacted part of the building to the weaked part of the structure? Remote control plains and pre-positioned charges? Where did all the airline passengers go who disappeared that day? How did an jet airliner manage to take off via remote control at an international airport loaded with passenegers? Who was the control tower talking to when directing the air craft? It is all just totally inconceivable.
Phi for All Posted September 15, 2011 Posted September 15, 2011 I think it would be considerably more than just difficult. The tower was hit by a plane and was on fire. People streaming down the stairs and elevators below the impacts. Fire crews every where and trying to get up. How would the fake maintenance crews get up in time through the throng of people? Wouldn't it look massively suspicious with a maintenace crew going up under such conditions? How would the fake maintenace crew get past the impacted part of the building to the weaked part of the structure? Umm, I was under the impression that the charges were thought to have been placed prior to the actual assault, like several days in advance. 1
zapatos Posted September 15, 2011 Posted September 15, 2011 Maintenance on cables, pipes or even the buildings' structure itself? I don't know about you, but in my office I just step out for a coffee if the maintenance crews need to do something to my room. And if they do anything in a room where I am not, I just ignore them. Elevator maintenance crews probably never get disturbed by anyone. Please note that I do not advertise this theory of explosives and I respect the emotions of the American people regarding this topic, but I think it would certainly be possible. Difficult, but possible. How strict were the safety regulations to the areas where pipes and cables were running? Could anyone get access to that, or was it severely restricted? And were those running right next to critical structural columns? The question I asked was not simply how to place explosives (which I imagine would be difficult in itself), but how to place them at the location of impact. If it was simply coincidence that the plane hit near where the explosives were placed I guess that is possible. But if the explosives were somehow to be used in tandem with the plane impact to complete the demolition of the tower (which I think Dave might have implying in post #8 with his picture), I'm curious as to how the parties involved could have managed to have the plane hit in such close proximity to the explosives.
CaptainPanic Posted September 15, 2011 Posted September 15, 2011 The question I asked was not simply how to place explosives (which I imagine would be difficult in itself), but how to place them at the location of impact. If it was simply coincidence that the plane hit near where the explosives were placed I guess that is possible. But if the explosives were somehow to be used in tandem with the plane impact to complete the demolition of the tower (which I think Dave might have implying in post #8 with his picture), I'm curious as to how the parties involved could have managed to have the plane hit in such close proximity to the explosives. Just place them all over the building. Detonate either only those you need, or detonate all. I am no demolition expert, but it really isn't all that hard to plant explosives on each and every floor, and remotely detonate those you want to blow up. From the footage of 9/11 I remember that nearly every floor collapsed in the same way, and the building came straight down. If you would detonate explosives at that exact moment, if wouldn't make a difference. Again, I am not saying there were explosives. I am saying that if there were, the collapse would look the same.
zapatos Posted September 15, 2011 Posted September 15, 2011 Just place them all over the building. Detonate either only those you need, or detonate all. I am no demolition expert, but it really isn't all that hard to plant explosives on each and every floor, and remotely detonate those you want to blow up. From the footage of 9/11 I remember that nearly every floor collapsed in the same way, and the building came straight down. If you would detonate explosives at that exact moment, if wouldn't make a difference. Again, I am not saying there were explosives. I am saying that if there were, the collapse would look the same. Ok, then I'm back to my question in post # 13. What would have been the purpose of crashing a plane into the tower AND having a controlled demolition of the same building? If you could drop the tower with controlled demolition then crashing the plane into the tower was an unnecessary effort. Why not drop the tower with controlled demolition and use the plane for another target? And while placing explosives on each and every floor might be easy if you were allowed to do so, I would imagine that someone trying to do so surreptitiously on so many floors and not get caught would be exceedingly difficult. While most anything is possible, I just don't see these as credible scenarios.
CaptainPanic Posted September 15, 2011 Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) Ok, then I'm back to my question in post # 13. What would have been the purpose of crashing a plane into the tower AND having a controlled demolition of the same building? If you could drop the tower with controlled demolition then crashing the plane into the tower was an unnecessary effort. Why not drop the tower with controlled demolition and use the plane for another target? Damn, now I am defending the conspiracy theory... LOL. Ok, let's play the devil's advocate. I think that it is obvious why you need the planes. A controlled demolition really suggests an inside job. There would be multiple people, who have to be in touch with the owners of the buildings to even get in. At least someone would need to be in some sort of position of power in a large company (or government) to organize this. You need to hide the fact that someone in power (either in government or a large company) is involved, so you smash a plane full of fuel into a building first... and then to make sure it comes down, you still detonate it. And while placing explosives on each and every floor might be easy if you were allowed to do so, I would imagine that someone trying to do so surreptitiously on so many floors and not get caught would be exceedingly difficult. Every floor was identical. A company doing maintenance would normally visit every floor anyway, and would be able to get to the weirdest little corners... and fire department, or any other government organization that checks on safety also will visit every little corner of a building before giving a certificate that it's safe. So it's not suspicious at all, if you have the right cover. Edited September 15, 2011 by CaptainPanic
zapatos Posted September 15, 2011 Posted September 15, 2011 Damn, now I am defending the conspiracy theory... LOL. Ok, let's play the devil's advocate. I think that it is obvious why you need the planes. A controlled demolition really suggests an inside job. There would be multiple people, who have to be in touch with the owners of the buildings to even get in. At least someone would need to be in some sort of position of power in a large company (or government) to organize this. You need to hide the fact that someone in power (either in government or a large company) is involved, so you smash a plane full of fuel into a building first... and then to make sure it comes down, you still detonate it. Ok, I'm almost convinced. The thing that would have sealed it for me would have been if the government official who organized this would have made sure he was on the plane that hit the tower. That way he'd be above suspicion and wouldn't have to worry about being questioned.
michel123456 Posted September 15, 2011 Posted September 15, 2011 It would be interesting to have an estimate of the required quantity of thermite you need for only one floor. I guess several tons.
Phi for All Posted September 15, 2011 Posted September 15, 2011 Is it a prerequisite for this hypothesis that it was instigated by someone other than the terrorists? Because I don't see why terrorists would mind the buildings toppling sideways (if they could) and I don't see why they would want to cover up any prearranged demolition.
John Cuthber Posted September 15, 2011 Posted September 15, 2011 Practically whatever you do to the building, it won't topple like a tree. Gravity goes down, and so do buildings. They are not stiff enough to fall over except in cartoons. The "controlled" bit of demolition is a matter of wrapping it and making sure it happens as cleanly and safely as possible. I might not notice if the maintenance bloke s stacked tons of thermite or explosives in the building where I work, but the maintenance blokes would. So would the plumber who turned up the next week, or the computer bloke, trying to trace a wire. Someone would spot it and call it in. (actually, it probably would be me; I'm a Safety Rep and I get interested in that sort of thing.)
InigoMontoya Posted September 16, 2011 Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) Just place them all over the building. Detonate either only those you need, or detonate all. I am no demolition expert, but it really isn't all that hard to plant explosives on each and every floor, and remotely detonate those you want to blow up. No, but it *IS* difficult to get the explosives in question to blow up after they've been sitting in a furnace for 30 minutes or so after an aircraft impact. The odds of your remote control system - regardless of construction - being able to remain intact and functional after the impact and fire and all the damage that implies? Small. Very small. We aren't talking about a black box - a small object that can be arbitrarily hardened. We're talking about a network of detcord or wiring harnesses and the like strung all throughout the floor. You may be able to initiate such a system on *other* floors, but on the impacted floor using a system put in place in advance? I don't believe it. Disclaimer: And just as you are not an expert on demolition, I make no such claims of being an expert... I can, however, say that this morning I made just over two tons of 1.1 material disappear so it's not like I'm totally ignorant of the topic either. From the footage of 9/11 I remember that nearly every floor collapsed in the same way, and the building came straight down. If you would detonate explosives at that exact moment, if wouldn't make a difference. Again, I am not saying there were explosives. I am saying that if there were, the collapse would look the same. The collapse WOULD look different. Maybe not after the dust had settled, but *as* the building was falling? Yeah, it would look different. I think that it is obvious why you need the planes. A controlled demolition really suggests an inside job. There would be multiple people, who have to be in touch with the owners of the buildings to even get in. At least someone would need to be in some sort of position of power in a large company (or government) to organize this. You need to hide the fact that someone in power (either in government or a large company) is involved, so you smash a plane full of fuel into a building first... and then to make sure it comes down, you still detonate it. I'm not seeing the problem. Figure out who is in charge of building maintenance (or at least, one portion of it...say, plumbing) and who *isn't* you. Have that person killed execution style the night before you blow up the building. When the dust settles it will appear that the conspiracy guys killed their contact to keep him quiet and just like that... You're in the clear. Practically whatever you do to the building, it won't topple like a tree. Gravity goes down, and so do buildings. They are not stiff enough to fall over except in cartoons. I made a similar comment earlier in the thread and I stand by it. Explosives are not required to get an object that size to fall straight down. Edited September 16, 2011 by InigoMontoya
Greg Boyles Posted September 16, 2011 Posted September 16, 2011 Just place them all over the building. Detonate either only those you need, or detonate all. I am no demolition expert, but it really isn't all that hard to plant explosives on each and every floor, and remotely detonate those you want to blow up. From the footage of 9/11 I remember that nearly every floor collapsed in the same way, and the building came straight down. If you would detonate explosives at that exact moment, if wouldn't make a difference. Again, I am not saying there were explosives. I am saying that if there were, the collapse would look the same. That is nothing more than unstoppable momentum. The weight and momentum of the collapsing part of the building simple exceeded the engineering limits if the hooks that held the floor trusses in place. The more the building that collapsed the greater the weight and momentum impinging on the next set of hooks below.
CaptainPanic Posted September 16, 2011 Posted September 16, 2011 Practically whatever you do to the building, it won't topple like a tree. Gravity goes down, and so do buildings. They are not stiff enough to fall over except in cartoons. The "controlled" bit of demolition is a matter of wrapping it and making sure it happens as cleanly and safely as possible. I might not notice if the maintenance bloke s stacked tons of thermite or explosives in the building where I work, but the maintenance blokes would. So would the plumber who turned up the next week, or the computer bloke, trying to trace a wire. Someone would spot it and call it in. (actually, it probably would be me; I'm a Safety Rep and I get interested in that sort of thing.) This is so far the best argument I've read in this thread against the conspiracy theory. It's true that in a building of such a size there are just too many people with access to maintenance areas, and you can't hide all the explosives and the network of cords that connect them. No, but it *IS* difficult to get the explosives in question to blow up after they've been sitting in a furnace for 30 minutes or so after an aircraft impact. The odds of your remote control system - regardless of construction - being able to remain intact and functional after the impact and fire and all the damage that implies? Small. Very small. We aren't talking about a black box - a small object that can be arbitrarily hardened. We're talking about a network of detcord or wiring harnesses and the like strung all throughout the floor. But this is a pretty good argument too. Could you connect the explosives with ordinary electric wire (copper cables), which is a lot more fire-resistant? (This is really my last attempt to make anything of this theory - it's falling apart, lol).
StringJunky Posted September 16, 2011 Posted September 16, 2011 This is so far the best argument I've read in this thread against the conspiracy theory. It's true that in a building of such a size there are just too many people with access to maintenance areas, and you can't hide all the explosives and the network of cords that connect them. But this is a pretty good argument too. Could you connect the explosives with ordinary electric wire (copper cables), which is a lot more fire-resistant? (This is really my last attempt to make anything of this theory - it's falling apart, lol). Could you have individual radio-controlled detonators placed in each pile negating the need for wire....just trying to stop the thread falling apart.
Pantaz Posted September 16, 2011 Posted September 16, 2011 ... Both Well, I can only do one of them "first" ;-) For 9-11 subjects, I tend to use the JREF forums as my initial source. They do not delete posts or threads. This means that information or references found there can always be found there -- unlike many other internet forums. Offensive or threatening language may be edited out, but at the worst, posts or whole threads are simply moved to the "Abandon All Hope" sub-forum. (Only visible to registered members.) Several lengthy discussions concerning the paper have taken place on the JREF forums. There were actually two submissions accepted by Bentham. The first was just a letter to the Open Civil Engineering Journal, titled, "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction". (Prior to publication, Jones blogged, "Recently had a technical paper accepted for publication following peer-review"). After publication of this first article, when the identity of the publisher was revealed, it quickly became clear that the whole "Bentham Open Access" system was/is highly questionable. (Considerable discussion of the letter's content follow in that thread.) On to the paper in question. Bentham Open Access First of all, Bentham's Open Chemical Physics Journal is a pay-to-publish "vanity" journal -- as are most (if not all) of their 230+ open access journals. At the time of publication, their fees ranged from $600 to $900 per article. Rebuttals are charged the same fees. The paper was never presented to the journal's editor in chief, Marie-Paule Pileni. When made aware of this, she resigned, as reported by the Danish news service Videnskab.dk (Translation from here): "Professor Marie-Paule Pileni first heard about the article when videnskab.dk wrote to her to ask for her professional assessment of the article’s content." "“They have printed the article without my permission, so when you wrote to me, I did not know that the article had appeared. I cannot accept this, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them”, explains Marie Paule Pileni, who is professor with a specialty in nanomaterials at the renowned Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in France." “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” One post-publication peer review begins, "There is much wrong with this article. It would not have passed my expert peer review in its published state."It is worthwhile noting that the author, Denis G. Rancourt, if not directly involved with, is sympathetic to the "Truth Movement". Bentham's peer review was found to be questionable in another instance: "OA publisher accepts fake paper", followed by, "Editors quit after fake paper flap". More opinions and concerns about Bentham's integrity from many academics are summarized here. Next... Errors in Methodology and Conclusions I'll simply point you to work done by properly qualified people: "Active Thermitic Material" claimed in Ground Zero dust may not be thermitic at all (by Enrico Manieri)Abstract: A recent paper claiming "active thermitic material" in dust collected in the vicinity of the Twin Towers after their collapse is found to have shortcomings in its methodology.The paper also fails to explore adequately alternative, non-thermitic explanations for its findings. Specifically, the paper's use of methyl-ethyl-ketone (MEK) to demonstrate the presence of elemental aluminum is known to yield inconsistent results because MEK could react with aluminum; alleged elemental aluminum nanoparticles are claimed to remain unreacted after 55 hours of MEK bath, but also contradictorily to react violently already at 430°C; photographic and spectral comparisons between commercial thermite and spheroidal particles in Ground Zero dust omit any other comparison with possible alternative sources of such findings; DSC analysis was conducted in air, but should have been conducted in an inert gas environment in order to obtain reliable results for thermite, which does not require an external oxidizer. The paper also does not consider the chemical composition of the corrosion-proofing paints and of the vermiculite used as thermal insulation and soundproofing at the World Trade Center and extensively documented by NIST. These products contain exactly the same elements and exhibit the same structural characteristics as the allegedly thermitic material found by the paper's researchers in their samples. The researchers therefore appear to have been somewhat hasty in reaching their conclusions. [*] The results of their DSC analysis is touted by the author and supporters as significant, yet the methodology is one of the more glaring errors. (From page 10) The DSC tests were conducted with a linear heating rate of 10 °C per minute up to a temperature of 700 °C. During heating, the samples were contained in alumina pans and air was allowed to flow at 55 milliliters per minute during the heating. I can't find words to express it better than what was said here: "These guys ran the DSC in a flow of air with more than enough to burn anything burnable. Fires always show a nice exotherm." And here: "... I just cannot believe that anyone would be so stupid as to place a material compromising an iron oxide layer attached to a red layer containing aluminosilicates and Fe2O3 with an unknown Carbon based material, into a DSC, combust it and then claim a thermite reaction has taken place." [*] Note: While the following is not in typical peer review style, the author, "Sunstealer", is a forensic metallurgist. These are just a few of his more technical postings that review the "thermite paper". "Proof Red Layer is NOT thermite - Kaolinite Found" (SEM and EDS analysis) "... cross comparisons of each of the chips examined in the paper." "... some analysis on the results specifically with regard to the aluminium." "General Characterisation (Visual Characterisation, Gray Layer and Red Layer Analysis)." He recently found another discrepancy -- "... the chip soaked in MEK in the Harrit et al paper was WTC primer paint". a) A rebuttal of sorts to that last post was made in a blog entry. After being referenced in a post at JREF, another member, "Oystein", unable to post a comment on the blog, provided answers here. If you can ignore the typical internet forum noise, the following threads contain numerous posts using solid science and verifiable resources that refute the paper again and again. Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper 1
InigoMontoya Posted September 17, 2011 Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) Could you connect the explosives with ordinary electric wire (copper cables), which is a lot more fire-resistant? (This is really my last attempt to make anything of this theory - it's falling apart, lol). Not likely. * While the copper might be fire-resistant it's still going to be very vulnerable to damage during the aircraft impact. Wires that have been cut aren't going to perform their intended function. * The wire may be fire proof, but the insulation is not going to be. Remove the insulation from all that copper and your system is going to have all sorts of electrical shorts in whatever remains. Could you encase your wires in ablatives or similar? Yes, but you just made installation that much more lengthy (time) and obvious (visibility). Could you have individual radio-controlled detonators placed in each pile negating the need for wire....just trying to stop the thread falling apart. We're drifting away from my field, but ionized (read: very hot) gases are reasonably conductive and as such they would create a Faraday cage of sorts around your receivers. Think of the "black out" periods of space craft re-entering the atmosphere. The vehicles are bathed in hot, ionized gases that make RF communication with them problematic at best. You'd see the same effects inside of a fire. As a result, I'll venture that your RF-based detonators aren't likely to work. Another note: At the office we routinely do what's known as a "fast cook-off test." During a FCO we take ordnance items, hang them about 3 feet above a pool of jet fuel, and light it on fire. The test is designed to mimic what happens when a fire starts under the wing of a fighter on the deck of an aircraft carrier on a very bad day. Suffice to say that it generally doesn't take very long before the ordnance decides to do something pretty exciting all on it's own. Even when the items are coated with high temperature insulative materials.... We're talking much shorter timelines than the collapse of the towers. My point being that any pre-positioned ordnance system of a non-extreme design would have started malfunctioning (read: Boom!) in a chaotic fashion long before the towers collapsed. Edited September 17, 2011 by InigoMontoya
John Cuthber Posted September 17, 2011 Posted September 17, 2011 Incidentally, when people who know what they are doing; have all the time they need; and proper access, want to demolish a building, they don't use thermite. They use explosives; in particular, shaped charges. So why do the conspiracy nutters insist on it? And I'm still wondering how that "thermite" which ignites at 430C survived the fire.
Phi for All Posted September 17, 2011 Posted September 17, 2011 Incidentally, when people who know what they are doing; have all the time they need; and proper access, want to demolish a building, they don't use thermite. They use explosives; in particular, shaped charges. So why do the conspiracy nutters insist on it? And I'm still wondering how that "thermite" which ignites at 430C survived the fire. I don't get this either. Why thermite? If you're using thermite so no one finds explosives residue after the fact, why would thermite residue be any less suspicious? It ruins the whole idea. Regular explosives could have been explained away as having been on board the planes with the terrorists. From all I've heard, it doesn't seem to be all that surprising that the buildings came down. Although they were engineered to survive a passenger jet impact, it sounds like they could not survive even one floor falling down on top of the next. And that seems guaranteed from a fire accelerated by 23,000 gallons of av fuel.
InigoMontoya Posted September 18, 2011 Posted September 18, 2011 I don't get this either. Why thermite? If you're using thermite so no one finds explosives residue after the fact, why would thermite residue be any less suspicious? It ruins the whole idea. Regular explosives could have been explained away as having been on board the planes with the terrorists. Indeed. Plus, there are plenty of explosives out there that are NOT nitrated esters which would in turn make the likelihood of them being detected after the fact much lower.
John Cuthber Posted September 18, 2011 Posted September 18, 2011 Among the strange things I have done for a living is analyse for explosives residues (and decomposition products). I didn't just look for nitrate esters and I don't think the investigators of the 9/11 event would have done so. There's no evidence of explosives (of any sort) having been used. Perhaps the most critical evidence here is that there is no explosion on the videos. Thermite wouldn't work. If it did hen the professionals would use it. it seems reasonable to me that, in the absence of any other cause, you have to accept that the towers came down because some bastards crashed two planes into them. Of course, since that doesn't involve blaming the government (at least directly) some people won't accept it. This sort of thread should be moved to the "psychology" sub forum so we can discuss the reasons for their delusions.
InigoMontoya Posted September 18, 2011 Posted September 18, 2011 (edited) Among the strange things I have done for a living is analyse for explosives residues (and decomposition products). I didn't just look for nitrate esters and I don't think the investigators of the 9/11 event would have done so. One would hope, but I can state that I have gone through a TSA "wipe" (or whatever they call it when they wipe everything down with a patch and shove it into the machine) with no incident knowing full well that I was contaminated (I'd gone straight from processing facilities to the airport and didn't have time for a shower) with non-nitrated-ester type explosives. I've also been with my wife when she was pinged in the same type searches for being contaminated with HMX. Granted, I would expect a 9/11 investigation to be more thorough than a TSA baggage/personnel wipe, but I still find it interesting and perhaps telling that my wife - who bought new clothes and such for her trip - "hit" while I did not. FWIW: I work in the field of ordnance testing. My wife's field is ordnance synthesis and forumulation. Edited September 18, 2011 by InigoMontoya
Recommended Posts