Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Winston · 07-12-2009, 11:57 AM

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

Bentham Science Publishers

HughRuss · 07-12-2009, 01:41 PM

I think the study is biased, and I'll say why. The samples were collected from 4 different people in New York.

Originally Posted by Article

Tom Breidenbach, Frank Delessio,
Jody Intermont, Janette MacKinlay, and Steve White

At least two of these people, Tom Breidenbach and Janette MacKinlay, have vested interests in how this study plays out.
Tom Breidenbach Replies to Jeff Wells re 9/11
Debunking the Debunkers: 9/11 Survivor Janette MacKinlay Makes an Appeal for a New Investigation Into 9/11

Another inconsistency in the data is how the samples were collected. Since they were not collected by the Study Team, but rather were sent in by people (who, at the time of the crash, thought it prudent to collect dust falling on their heads) that saved dust in baggies for 5+ years (the earliest sample came 5 years after the towers fell, the latest 7), the chain of possession cannot be verified.

The assumptions made by the study group, as well as the reasons for the study (presuming they are going to find something in dust that settled in some cases several thousand feet away from where the towers fell) taints it from the word go. The study itself is dubious, and those who contributed to the study are slanted in one direction.

These complications open a Pandora's box of questions that will ultimately nullify the study's conclusions.

Winston · 07-13-2009, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by HughRuss

I think the study is biased, and I'll say why. The samples were collected from 4 different people in New York.

At least two of these people, Tom Breidenbach and Janette MacKinlay, have vested interests in how this study plays out.
Tom Breidenbach Replies to Jeff Wells re 9/11
Debunking the Debunkers: 9/11 Survivor Janette MacKinlay Makes an Appeal for a New Investigation Into 9/11

And just what is that vested interest? That they made the contention that the towers were imploded, and then set forth to prove that contention with scientific analysis? So, we should discount the studies of Copernicus, afterall, he had a "vested interest" in how things turned out. What you prefer, a group of people that said no way in hell the towers imploded, and then they seek out to prove themselves WRONG? Yeah, I be holding my breath on that one.

Another inconsistency in the data is how the samples were collected. Since they were not collected by the Study Team, but rather were sent in by people (who, at the time of the crash, thought it prudent to collect dust falling on their heads) that saved dust in baggies for 5+ years (the earliest sample came 5 years after the towers fell, the latest 7), the chain of possession cannot be verified.

The assumptions made by the study group, as well as the reasons for the study (presuming they are going to find something in dust that settled in some cases several thousand feet away from where the towers fell) taints it from the word go. The study itself is dubious, and those who contributed to the study are slanted in one direction.

So, this study team, with a "conflict of interest", THEY should have gathered the samples? And just how were "they" suppossed to attain them--ask the government nicely? Nevermind that the salvaged steel was sold to China for a much lower price than US firms were offering. Then we bought it back to build a Navy ship. And sure, those people that gathered samples, they all had access to thermite reactions, probably bought a Chemistry set and were just having a little fun.

HughRuss · 07-13-2009, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Winston

And just what is that vested interest? That they made the contention that the towers were imploded, and then set forth to prove that contention with scientific analysis? So, we should discount the studies of Copernicus, afterall, he had a "vested interest" in how things turned out. What you prefer, a group of people that said no way in hell the towers imploded, and then they seek out to prove themselves WRONG? Yeah, I be holding my breath on that one.

You're right. Studies that are biased (which ultimately affirm their biases) are perfectly fine studies. That's precisely why studies that are proven to have problematic (if not downright falsified) study samples are *NOT* immediately discounted, huh?

Wait, yes they are.

Imagine it this way, parent. A study (funded by a toy company) sets out to find whether or not one particular childrens toy is laced with arsenic and lead. To collect its sample, it asks 4 participants, two of whom are stockholders (one 10%, the other 15%) in the toy company itself, and the other 2 cannot be verified either way. The study concludes that there is no poison in the toys. Two days later a news report comes across CNN that states two more kids died from what appears to be lead poisoning after playing with this toy.

This is a perfect example of how studies can intentionally be put on like a dog and pony show. The toy company will claim that the study found no adverse effects, and most importantly of all, no poisoning. Everybody believes them, and thinks that the conclusions are completely unbiased.

Originally Posted by Winston

So, this study team, with a "conflict of interest", THEY should have gathered the samples? And just how were "they" suppossed to attain them--ask the government nicely?

They're not. It's 8 years past the event. The samples are of dubious nature to begin with. Your defense of this study is, while not astonishing (and completely within your nature of partial retardation), blatantly illogical.

Originally Posted by Winston

Nevermind that the salvaged steel was sold to China for a much lower price than US firms were offering. Then we bought it back to build a Navy ship. And sure, those people that gathered samples, they all had access to thermite reactions, probably bought a Chemistry set and were just having a little fun.

Are you really this dense? Or do you just really, REALLY want to believe? Given your past history with ludicrous beliefs, I'd have to say the latter is more true than the former, although I fail to see a definite line between the two.

Here, I'll tell you how to make thermite:
Get some iron oxide (this is commonly known as rust)
Shave up some aluminum into a fine powder. This can be accomplished with any metal grinder; you can find a cheap one at home depot, or Sears.

Mix the two ingredients together in a 1:1 ratio. Light it with a magnesium strip.

It wouldn't have taken any of those people 10 minutes to gather the materials enough to make "thermite chips."

Winston · 07-13-2009, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by HughRuss

You're right. Studies that are biased (which ultimately affirm their biases) are perfectly fine studies. That's precisely why studies that are proven to have problematic (if not downright falsified) study samples are *NOT* immediately discounted, huh?

Wait, yes they are.

Imagine it this way, parent. A study (funded by a toy company) sets out to find whether or not one particular childrens toy is laced with arsenic and lead. To collect its sample, it asks 4 participants, two of whom are stockholders (one 10%, the other 15%) in the toy company itself, and the other 2 cannot be verified either way. The study concludes that there is no poison in the toys. Two days later a news report comes across CNN that states two more kids died from what appears to be lead poisoning after playing with this toy.

This is a perfect example of how studies can intentionally be put on like a dog and pony show. The toy company will claim that the study found no adverse effects, and most importantly of all, no poisoning. Everybody believes them, and thinks that the conclusions are completely unbiased.

I think a better example of bias studies could be taken from the real world, pharmacetical research for instance. And yes, the samples are questionable, but, can a better sample be attained is the question that must be asked. If not, then you eliminate any possible discovery of thermite residue.

They're not. It's 8 years past the event. The samples are of dubious nature to begin with. Your defense of this study is, while not astonishing (and completely within your nature of partial retardation), blatantly illogical.

Look hoss, how about you find an IQ test online we both can take. Maybe one based on symbols and patterns because I think you might have a disadvantage when it comes to English. MENSA might be a place to start, believe they have a "qualifying" test. But the only thing "illogical" is the belief that nineteen hijackers with case-cutters bought down those towers.

Are you really this dense? Or do you just really, REALLY want to believe? Given your past history with ludicrous beliefs, I'd have to say the latter is more true than the former, although I fail to see a definite line between the two.

A shipment of scrap steel from New York's collapsed World Trade Center will arrive in Shanghai tomorrow, according to media reports. The steel was bought by Shanghai Baosteel Group Corp. and several other domestic mills, which are always eager to buy scrap metal.
Baosteel Group, the nation's largest steel firm, has purchased 50,000 tons of the scrap steel from "Ground Zero," the ruins of the September 11 terrorist attack, at no more than US$120 each ton, according to yesterday's Beijing Youth Daily.

Baosteel Will Recycle World Trade Center Debris

The assessment came with a striking level of detail. It estimated that each of the twin towers contained 3,881 tons of steel reinforcing in the concrete floor slabs; 47,453 tons of vertical steel columns; 8,462 tons of aluminum and glass on the exterior walls; 2,531 tons of various ceiling materials; 4,218 tons of flooring; and 31,350 tons of partitions or walls.

Steel in the News: 10/9/01 NYT Article: From Torn Steel, Cold Data of Salvage

Here, I'll tell you how to make thermite:
Get some iron oxide (this is commonly known as rust)
Shave up some aluminum into a fine powder. This can be accomplished with any metal grinder; you can find a cheap one at home depot, or Sears.

Mix the two ingredients together in a 1:1 ratio. Light it with a magnesium strip.

It wouldn't have taken any of those people 10 minutes to gather the materials enough to make "thermite chips."

Then demonstrate two things,

First--a linkage between those that gathered the samples and those that conducted the study. Were the samples solicited?

Second--the motivation to screw up the study of those that collected the samples? Why were the samples "preserved" would be a bigger question than how? Despite your attempt to portray otherwise, generating a thermite reaction is not "simple", is highly dangerous, and more complicated than constructing a pipe bomb--which we know sometimes explode by mistake.

Now, just for grins--what single organization made a ton of money during the immediate aftermath of 9/11? Not stock options, not military spending--nope, making money the old fashioned way, "earning it". What entity?

HughRuss · 07-14-2009, 02:43 AM

Originally Posted by Winston

I think a better example of bias studies could be taken from the real world, pharmacetical research for instance. And yes, the samples are questionable, but, can a better sample be attained is the question that must be asked. If not, then you eliminate any possible discovery of thermite residue.

You're right. The bias of the sample providers (not to mention that this study was begot by these samplers), the time line, the dubious nature of the sample acquisition, and the rest of the complications hindering this study, should not be factors when considering its validity. Everything is hunky dory. The government brought down the towers, or at least they funded it, or at least we think they funded, or at least a few people think they funded it, just so the government could invade a country and then tie it to another country, and the government willingly wanted to kill its own citizens, and the G8 is involved, and the world is becoming a single nation controlled by one group, who are descendants of the Knights Templar, and we are destined to socialism, and the rest of the claims made by The Zeitgeist are completely and utterly factual. It's a great, grand conspiracy to control mankind.

Originally Posted by Winston

Look hoss, how about you find an IQ test online we both can take.

You and I both know this isn't a dick measuring contest, and never was. This, I fear, is a distraction from the pathos of this thread (or maybe an extension of yours). Deflection is a well-documented psychological symptom, although it'd be difficult to place (at least within par) where you fall on the scale from Sophie's Choice to Red Dragon.

If you so wish to measure intellectual virility, an IQ test would be a terrible place to start. If you really wish to measure your mental age in comparison to others your age, I assume you'll conclude that you're +- 2 years from what you are. Grats.

If you really want to delve into a battle of intelligence based on non-standardized, non-normalized internet IQ tests, I believe the last time I fell into this trap I was all of 15 years old, and had a tepid 143 based on a test that asked some 50 questions, and provided results through e-mail 10 seconds after clicking submit.

Originally Posted by Winston

Maybe one based on symbols and patterns because I think you might have a disadvantage when it comes to English.

Yes, it is very clear I'd have the disadvantage with English (coming from a person who speaks almost exclusively in idioms).

Originally Posted by Winston

MENSA might be a place to start, believe they have a "qualifying" test.

That costs money and is administered in person.

Originally Posted by Winston

But the only thing "illogical" is the belief that nineteen hijackers with case-cutters bought down those towers.

Yeah, I know how difficult it is for you to accept reality. I understand it is difficult for you to grasp concepts of the real world, but if you try hard enough, probably twice as hard as you do reading your Sabin and Cunningham, you'll begin to understand rationality and logic.

Originally Posted by Winston

A shipment of scrap steel from New York's collapsed World Trade Center will arrive in Shanghai tomorrow, according to media reports. The steel was bought by Shanghai Baosteel Group Corp. and several other domestic mills, which are always eager to buy scrap metal.
Baosteel Group, the nation's largest steel firm, has purchased 50,000 tons of the scrap steel from "Ground Zero," the ruins of the September 11 terrorist attack, at no more than US$120 each ton, according to yesterday's Beijing Youth Daily.

Another piece of irrelevance.

Originally Posted by Winston

Baosteel Will Recycle World Trade Center Debris

The assessment came with a striking level of detail. It estimated that each of the twin towers contained 3,881 tons of steel reinforcing in the concrete floor slabs; 47,453 tons of vertical steel columns; 8,462 tons of aluminum and glass on the exterior walls; 2,531 tons of various ceiling materials; 4,218 tons of flooring; and 31,350 tons of partitions or walls.

Steel in the News: 10/9/01 NYT Article: From Torn Steel, Cold Data of Salvage

More?

Originally Posted by Winston

Then demonstrate two things,

First--a linkage between those that gathered the samples and those that conducted the study. Were the samples solicited?

I will connect this in a second.

Originally Posted by Winston

Second--the motivation to screw up the study of those that collected the samples? Why were the samples "preserved" would be a bigger question than how?

If the study was elicited by the samplers, why would they want to screw it up? Their entire intention was, one has to assume, to assert their viewpoint. Having a study performed at the behest of two (possibly more) very outspoken critics (and coincidentally enough, tinfoilers) of the 9/11 report should do more than raise eyebrows.

A better question is a series of the following:
Why would anybody in their right mind, while being bombarded with debris from falling buildings, think to grab a handful of this dust, carry it numerous blocks until they found a suitable container to store it in?
Why would anybody who chose to do this keep this container for 5+ years?
What does it say about the authors of the study that literally every one (all but one, Bradley Larsen) is a blatant outspoken adherent to the conspiracy theory? (Google each of their names)

So, not only do you have questionable samples from biased individuals (who elicited the study), but the authors (who also are connected in more than one way with at least one of the samplers, Janette MacKinlay) are utterly biased as well.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

This free day-long conference at the University of California at Berkeley campus focused on the scientific method and forensic science as applied to the crime scene investigations of the World Trade Center disaster on 9/11/01. Presenters included Dr. Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, Jenna Orkin, and Janette MacKinlay among others.

The above website is run by others who are also linked to the authors of the study.

A brief piece on Jones:

Their most famous member, and co-founder, is Steven Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University. He has become famous for publishing a paper on the WTC collapse. Thus far this paper though, has only been reviewed, not in a journal on physics, or structural engineering, but in a Marxist journal of political economy. BYU itself has rejected his work. Dr. Jones primary research has been, not in structural engineering or the reaction of metals to heat, but in cold fusion, which even in the physics community is regarded as bordering on alchemy. Even more bizarrely, his other famous published work was one right out of the World Weekly News, claiming that Jesus visited Central America based on ancient Indian artwork.

I compiled the list of members and categorized them by specialty, position and institution, which actually was rather difficult. Oddly enough many of the members don't list their qualifications or university, which is quite strange, since every professor I have ever met is more than happy to go on for hours about their academic credentials.

I came up with a list of 76 members, expecting it to be full of Ivy League engineers and distinguished Middle Eastern scholars, experts bent on proving that the US government, and not Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centers. I was wrong.

Out of the 76 "experts" the most common academic discipline was philosophy, with 9 members, including a co-founder. Since 7 members did not even list an academic discipline, this was 1/7 of their credentialed membership. English/literature and psychology came in next with 5 members each. Even theology and "humanities" came in with 4 and 3 members respectively. Among actual scientific fields, physics was way in front, with 5 members, including the aforementioned Dr. Jones. I am not sure as to their academic credentials though, at least one of the "physicists", Jeffrey Farrer, isn't even a professor, he is a lab manager at BYU. [HughRussNote: This name should ring a bell (as being one of the authors of the study] One has to wonder whether Steven Jones' janitor is also listed as an associate member?

Originally Posted by Winston

Despite your attempt to portray otherwise, generating a thermite reaction is not "simple", is highly dangerous, and more complicated than constructing a pipe bomb--which we know sometimes explode by mistake.

The only thing difficult with generating a high-temperature thermite reaction is obtaining the temperatures necessary. This is why you need a magnesium ribbon. Lighting this will be difficult, but for anybody with a butane torch, it'll be as much a cinch as flipping a Zippo.

Originally Posted by Winston

Now, just for grins--what single organization made a ton of money during the immediate aftermath of 9/11? Not stock options, not military spending--nope, making money the old fashioned way, "earning it". What entity?

The gubbmint?

stolz25 · 07-14-2009, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Winston

So, we should discount the studies of Copernicus, afterall, he had a "vested interest" in how things turned out.

Copernicus' studies were independently verifiable. The 9-11 study can't be verified independedntly, since those are the only samples, and there is no way at all to know if those samples had been tampered with in the past 5+ years. So yes, you need to look at the motive of the people who did the study and wonder if they may have tampered with the samples.

Winston · 07-14-2009, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by HughRuss

The gubbmint?

No, although many make the mistake of believing they are a government entity.

The Federal Reserve. To maintain liquidity they made unprecedented loans. Now, we won't even talk about the fact that the Towers were filled with asbestos and were a damn huge ass standing liability. And you mentioned loss of life, if the objective was to maximize the loss of life whoever planned it sure didn't know shit. But, if they planned it to MINIMIZE the loss of life from a collapse, well it couldn't have happened at a better time.

HughRuss · 07-14-2009, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Winston

No, although many make the mistake of believing they are a government entity.

The Federal Reserve. To maintain liquidity they made unprecedented loans. Now, we won't even talk about the fact that the Towers were filled with asbestos and were a damn huge ass standing liability.

Probably because they began construction in the late 50s, early 60s

Originally Posted by Winston

And you mentioned loss of life, if the objective was to maximize the loss of life whoever planned it sure didn't know shit. But, if they planned it to MINIMIZE the loss of life from a collapse, well it couldn't have happened at a better time.

It could've happened at an even better time, say, Sunday, when trading is "minimal at best."

But since we're in the tin foil are of the bored (note spelling), the Fed is an interesting body, accountable to practically nobody. Have you read "The Creature From Jekyll Island"? It's a good book, and provided me with a perspective on the banking/financial issue (threat?) posed by the Fed.

Winston · 07-15-2009, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by HughRuss

But since we're in the tin foil are of the bored (note spelling), the Fed is an interesting body, accountable to practically nobody. Have you read "The Creature From Jekyll Island"? It's a good book, and provided me with a perspective on the banking/financial issue (threat?) posed by the Fed.

Yes, I read it. Try this,

"Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over.
"This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.

"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime. "These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this Country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia, and thus drove a wedge between the allies in World War. They financed Trotsky's passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian Revolution, and placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky's disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors. They have since begun breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children. "Mr. Chairman, there should be no partisanship in matters concerning banking and currency affairs in this Country, and I do not speak with any.

The Federal Reserve: An Astounding Exposure 1934

On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden,

Tom Breidenbach · 07-29-2009, 09:58 PM

I just ran across this page and your post about my "vested interests" in the outcome of the study on the dust sample. I would be happy to answer any questions you have about the sample, as well as about how it was collected.

You ask, quite naturally, how anyone would think to bag a sample of the dust that day. My friend Frank DeLessio, who gathered the sample initially, was on the Brooklyn Bridge when the north tower, the second to disintegrate, came down. He was walking into Manhattan against the flow of people on the bridge, and the dust cloud overtook him when he was on the Manhattan side of the bridge. He reports that, after he regained his bearings inside the cloud, he was amazed at all the dust everywhere. As he describes it he began knocking some of it around, as though it were snow, on one of the bridge's girders; then he grabbed a handful of it and headed up to my apartment in the East Village, not quite 2 miles north, holding the handful of dust in his hand. Frank thinks he probably grabbed the dust within 10 minutes of the north tower's destruction, and given the distance between where he was on the bridge at the time and where he grabbed the sample, that makes sense. He isn't sure why he grabbed the dust, other than that he was amazed by it.

Walking directly to my place, Frank showed up at my door covered in dust. When I opened my door I was startled, since I wasn't expecting to see him and didn't have any idea he had been downtown. He immediately extended his hand to me and opened it, saying something like "this is all over down there." I looked down at it and didn't know what to do. We were in a state of shock, but as I recall I didn't think it proper to throw away something that had just come from the scene of such a tragedy. I recall looking around for something to put the dust in, deciding that a plastic baggie would work, so I grabbed one for him to put the dust in, and put "the sample" into a drawer, where it remained as no more than a personal token of that day until I sent some of the sample in for testing years later, in 2007. I did move from that East Village apartment in the meantime, but the dresser drawer was never taken out of the dresser during the short move across the East River to Brooklyn. It was only after seeing a google video presentation by Dr. Steven Jones that I thought of sending part of the sample in for testing, since Dr. Jones was asking publicly in the presentation for any sample gathered on the very day of 9/11. Sending a portion of the sample in was the first time I had opened the baggie since 9/11. Having lived in New York we knew the dust was poisonous and I had no real inclination to play with or handle that sample, only to keep it, as one might keep a piece of the Berlin Wall (which I also posses).

I have been asked whether it isn't "convenient" that someone like me, who has studied and written about 9/11 from an angle sharply critical of the government's story, should just happen to come up with the very sample Dr. Jones et al were in search of. What can I say to that? Who else would be watching a presentation about the destruction of the towers, other than someone who had doubts about 9/11 to begin with? As of 9/11 I had lived in NYC for a decade. I had worked near the WTC for years, lived less than a few miles north of the Twin Towers, and had a great view of them from my roof. I think that if anyone was to end up with such a sample, and find out that it might be unique in some way, it's rather natural that it would be me.

You may also know that Frank, who was interested in photography at that time, had a camera with him that day and shot a role of black and white film while on the Brooklyn Bridge. These unique images, to which he owns the copyright, clearly place him where he said he was that day. The original negatives are in his possession, as is the camera with which he took them, which broke that day when Frank slipped and fell on the bridge, shortly after the dust cloud had overtaken him.

I can tell you that both Frank and I am willing to swear to our roles in the collection and "chain of custody" of the dust sample, under oath, in a court of law.

My only "vested interest" in this matter has all along been what it remains today: the truth.

I hope this answers some of your questions.

Meanwhile, I wonder. Let's say, hypothetically, that you were to place a call for a WTC 9/11 dust sample, test it, and find that it did NOT contain anything out of the ordinary, and a variety of established research professionals verified your findings. Would your happening to believe that the towers collapsed due to airplane impact and fire disqualify those results?

Tom Breidenbach

HughRuss · 07-29-2009, 11:05 PM

JDTC · 07-29-2009, 11:38 PM

You're in deep shit now, Hugh.

HughRuss · 07-30-2009, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by JDTC

You're in deep shit now, Hugh.

Tell me about it. THE Tom Breidenbach, who happens to register under his actual name, and to drive the point home, sign posts with "Tom Breidenbach" has decided to break 45 minutes off of his busy "Da Gubbmint is da durty wonz" business to post on this forum, solely to respond to MY questions.

IP Test + Pic of self with "I <3 Liberty Lounge" written on hand.

Tom Breidenbach · 07-31-2009, 06:47 PM

Yes, Hugh, "THE Tom Breidenbach...happens to register under his actual name, and to drive the point home, sign posts with 'Tom Breidenbach' has decided to break 45 minutes off of his busy 'Da Gubbmint is da durty wonz' business to post on this forum, solely to respond to MY questions."

Don't you feel special?

It may come as a surprise to you, Hugh, but some people, when finding their character and honesty impugned on a public forum, especially concerning a matter of such grave import as 9/11, feel it rather natural to respond. That this shocks, SHOCKS you so is not only odd, but a tad hysterical.

Rest assured, Hugh. For better or worse, I am the Tom Breidenbach who was born in 1965 and raised on a farm in northeast Colorado, where my family still lives (you can find our farm on Google Earth by punching in Breidenbach Lake; the house I was raised in is the one east-southeast of the Lake a ways, past the family teepee just east of the dam). I am the Tom Breidenbach who attended Iliff Elementary School, Caliche Jr./Sr. High School, the University of Denver, and who earned a Masters degree at the University of Massachusetts. I am the Tom Breidenbach who is a poet and also currently writes about art, "deep-political" matters such as 9/11, who is working on a series of other writing projects including plays (a few of which have been performed at various venues around NYC), who also teaches writing and literature, and who augments his meager income with gardening. (I also love to hike and take long walks on the beach, Hugh, if that's any help...) It is rather silly, not to mention evasive of you, to imagine that I am able to spend anything like all my time blaming "da gubbmint" for 9/11. Like most everyone else I have to work to earn a living, and that is no easier to do here in NYC than it is anywhere else, in spite of what your paranoid fantasies about my life suggest. Jeesh, one would think that you would leave all the paranoia and flights of fancy to us nutty "gubbmint"-hating conspiracy theorists, Hugh. But then again your grandstanding, including snotty misspellings of corny phrases no one on this forum but you ever uses, has allowed you to evade the content of my previous message, as well as the very real fact that I indeed am, and remain,

Your humble servant in truth,

Tom Breidenbach

PS--It is customary in civil discourse, Hugh, to SIGN one's correspondences, and I'm a bit of the old-fashioned type when it comes to custom and civility. You may want to Google "signing"; perhaps a Wikipedia page can explain the practice to you. Also, I am registered under my real name on any number of web forums, including 9/11 Blogger and Op Ed News, where you'll find a number of my posts. Feel free to compare the tone and tenor of my writing there and see if you don't recognize the wry turns-of-phrase such as have been addressed to you here... Additionally, unlike many others who, for reasons of their own, choose to hide behind an alias or first name only on the web, I place my name and identity on the opinions and testimony I espouse; the only the shocking about this, from my point of view, is that so many of us find ourselves giving so many of YOU the time of day. I'm not real tech-savvy, so I'm not sure what an "IP Test" is. If it is something that could be arranged without much trouble I would be up for it. I am willing to be in contact with Liberty Lounge, etc., to further confirm my identity; the web managers should have my personal e-mail, and I'll cooperate in determining my identity on this forum however I am able to. Also, I wouldn't know how to post a picture of myself on the web, but I can ask around and maybe figure that out too. Just for little ol' you, Hugh. Oh yes, and the cause of truth and public understanding of it.

CuriousMoon · 12-12-2009, 05:00 AM

In my opinion the sample in question can not be considered clean.

This is why:

1. You took the sample from one of the bridge girders which itself may have contained one or more elements of contamination.

2. The baggie itself may have been dirty prior to the dust. To prove otherwise the same box the baggie came out of must be supplied and sampled.

3. Gathering the dust in Tom's hand which might have been contaminated by his fall.

4. Putting the dust into Winston's hand which may have been contaminated.

Then such a test must try to remove the "Tampering" disqualification by having the same dust tested by another independent agency. Further, a test of still more dust from the Ground Zero site must be done(by yet another independent agency), while difficult it is the only way to corroborate conclusively.

concluding that the building materials of the WTC's contained both steel and aluminum, the only thing left to find is how the magnesium got there.(the planes?) Components of some machinery in the buildings?

****************************************
Conspiracy theorists are best to stick with WTC7 and its collapse.
That's the only one I have not debunked.......yet.