9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE - AE911Truth.org - Mark Basile Chemical Engineer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc
For information on the the first peer-reviewed paper of the WTC dust, which claims that active thermitic material was found in it, and the recent attempt that claimed it could not replicate the results of the experiments, but really didn't try to replicate the experiments, go here:
http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/
If you feel like chipping in a couple of bucks for the new, single-blind study, go here:
http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/donation/index.htm
9/11 Truth: Chemical Engineer Mark Basile to Conduct New Nan
Moderator: Super Moderators
I think this could be important information, but it is so muddied... who to believe? Science done like this can be very revealing, but it will not catch onto a bigger audience unless it is so cut-and-dried and reproducible that it is irrefutable.
How do we even know the samples tested are from the real twin towers?
How do we even know the samples tested are from the real twin towers?
"Science done like this can be very revealing, but it will not catch onto a bigger audience unless it is so cut-and-dried and reproducible that it is irrefutable."
The dust will be submitted to "an independent laboratory which will not know where the dust came from to ensure absolute and unquestionable objectivity."
"How do we even know the samples tested are from the real twin towers?"
Answer from Mark Basile:
"The samples have all come from people/institutions who claim the dust is WTC dust and all samples have the expected character/components seen by RJ Lee and others."
Here is information on some of the people he is referring to:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/ther ... provenance
One of the institutions he is talking about is a NYC museum, mentioned by Basile here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc
Here is what he is talking about regarding RJ Lee.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/ther ... hology.pdf
The dust will be submitted to "an independent laboratory which will not know where the dust came from to ensure absolute and unquestionable objectivity."
"How do we even know the samples tested are from the real twin towers?"
Answer from Mark Basile:
"The samples have all come from people/institutions who claim the dust is WTC dust and all samples have the expected character/components seen by RJ Lee and others."
Here is information on some of the people he is referring to:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/ther ... provenance
One of the institutions he is talking about is a NYC museum, mentioned by Basile here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc
Here is what he is talking about regarding RJ Lee.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/ther ... hology.pdf
Here is something from my blog about this issue to consider:
"Chain of Custody!"
In a September 2009 debate between Dylan Avery and Pat Curley, Pat questioned the chain of custody of Steven Jones' dust samples. When Dylan noted that the chain of custody is documented in the Harrit et al paper, Pat's response was:
I don't think you're gonna find that this stuff was hermetically sealed, that it was labeled at the time that it was taken - all the sorts of things that police would do with something that they're using as evidence.
Pat does sort of have a point here about the samples not being collected professionally. But as I wrote in response at the time:
By questioning the chain of custody you are effectively accusing the scientists and the citizens of conspiring to fake evidence by manufacturing high-tech energetic nanocomposites that only a handful of labs in the world can even make and adding them to samples! That sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me! And yet you find the idea of the government tampering with evidence ridiculous! Someone get Pat a tin foil hat!
Now that red/gray chips, or at least particles purporting to be them, have been found in professionally collected samples independent of Steven Jones', debunkers can now be assured that these red/gray chips, whatever they are, did not enter Jones' samples via accidental contamination, and were not intentionally added by 9/11 truth activists. So criticisms regarding the collection and chain of custody of Jones' samples are now null and void.
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... paper.html
The professionally collected samples the writer is referring to are those of James Millette, mentioned in the article for the fund raiser.
"Chain of Custody!"
In a September 2009 debate between Dylan Avery and Pat Curley, Pat questioned the chain of custody of Steven Jones' dust samples. When Dylan noted that the chain of custody is documented in the Harrit et al paper, Pat's response was:
I don't think you're gonna find that this stuff was hermetically sealed, that it was labeled at the time that it was taken - all the sorts of things that police would do with something that they're using as evidence.
Pat does sort of have a point here about the samples not being collected professionally. But as I wrote in response at the time:
By questioning the chain of custody you are effectively accusing the scientists and the citizens of conspiring to fake evidence by manufacturing high-tech energetic nanocomposites that only a handful of labs in the world can even make and adding them to samples! That sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me! And yet you find the idea of the government tampering with evidence ridiculous! Someone get Pat a tin foil hat!
Now that red/gray chips, or at least particles purporting to be them, have been found in professionally collected samples independent of Steven Jones', debunkers can now be assured that these red/gray chips, whatever they are, did not enter Jones' samples via accidental contamination, and were not intentionally added by 9/11 truth activists. So criticisms regarding the collection and chain of custody of Jones' samples are now null and void.
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... paper.html
The professionally collected samples the writer is referring to are those of James Millette, mentioned in the article for the fund raiser.
Last edited by jmtalboo on 12-11-2012 10:45 PM, edited 1 time in total.
I have been deep into this conspiracy since the day it happened and have seen pretty much every theory and crazy thing bandied about. The truther movement has been overrun with fakes and shills to the point that no information is beyond suspicion of fakery.
Things that cannot be absolutely legally and/or scientifically proven are a place ready to be attacked by the PTB. If there is any suggestion whatsoever that this dust may not have come from the towers it is useless to argue that it does. It matters not one bit how much you trust the researchers or they trust the collectors, that will never be good enough to stand up to the simplest attacks. No one will engage in a serious scientific argument about the results until there is proof the dust came from the towers, which cannot be proven because it was collected by amateurs who were not documenting the evidence.
Like it or not, 911 is like UFOs now. Blurry photos, ash residue (professionally and scientifically analyzed of course - with amazing results!), eyewitness testimony, etc etc but with almost no evidence that could be presented in a court and survive cross-examination. It pains me to say that because I really believed at one point the perps would be caught, but it looks so far like they got away with it basically 100%.
I personally think you are on the right track. I think you are doing an important job in a field that is tough and full of landmines. Your blog is excellent and I will check out the rest of it. What I am posting is just my personal observations on this evidence and should not be taken as debunking or downplaying it at all. I am just worried about where this evidence can be taken and what real impact it could have in its current state.
Things that cannot be absolutely legally and/or scientifically proven are a place ready to be attacked by the PTB. If there is any suggestion whatsoever that this dust may not have come from the towers it is useless to argue that it does. It matters not one bit how much you trust the researchers or they trust the collectors, that will never be good enough to stand up to the simplest attacks. No one will engage in a serious scientific argument about the results until there is proof the dust came from the towers, which cannot be proven because it was collected by amateurs who were not documenting the evidence.
Like it or not, 911 is like UFOs now. Blurry photos, ash residue (professionally and scientifically analyzed of course - with amazing results!), eyewitness testimony, etc etc but with almost no evidence that could be presented in a court and survive cross-examination. It pains me to say that because I really believed at one point the perps would be caught, but it looks so far like they got away with it basically 100%.
I personally think you are on the right track. I think you are doing an important job in a field that is tough and full of landmines. Your blog is excellent and I will check out the rest of it. What I am posting is just my personal observations on this evidence and should not be taken as debunking or downplaying it at all. I am just worried about where this evidence can be taken and what real impact it could have in its current state.
Three smoking guns:
But yeah, the holographic planes & space laser talk didn't help the search for the truth. I happen to think the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are making compelling, & level headed observations.
The biggest problem is that a good 75% of the population is unwilling to even consider anything but the official narrative, and 50% think the GWB administration is beyond criticism of any kind. They believe (all of the sudden) in an etch-a-sketch reality, wherein every time a new administration is inaugurated, the whole world should be shaken up, made blank again, and stricken with amnesia.
- the anthrax which originated in a cow in Texas in 1981, and was further developed at Fort Detrick, Maryland
- building seven - we have the video
- video from ground zero, during the collapse, where all kinds of first hand accounts from a wide variety of people (including police and NYFD) confirm additional explosions, & detonations all morning.
But yeah, the holographic planes & space laser talk didn't help the search for the truth. I happen to think the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are making compelling, & level headed observations.
The biggest problem is that a good 75% of the population is unwilling to even consider anything but the official narrative, and 50% think the GWB administration is beyond criticism of any kind. They believe (all of the sudden) in an etch-a-sketch reality, wherein every time a new administration is inaugurated, the whole world should be shaken up, made blank again, and stricken with amnesia.
Last edited by SquidInk on 12-12-2012 10:58 AM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
...and of those 3 smoking guns you mentioned, they have been explained away by the relevant parties and no doubts remain in the majority of people's minds. The anthrax is not even on the radar, most people would not even remember anything about that but dull memories dulled even more by alqaida talk and misdirections.
The eyewitnesses. I as a conspiracy researcher have a hard time with this. The fake witnesses were all over that day and inevitably have a louder voice than the real witnesses, since they work for the people who broadcast the news. Who is a double agent, who is a plant, are they simply planting stories the PTB know can be easily debunked?
NIST says WTC7 fell because of fires. This is good enough for most.
It doesn't matter what we think, nothing will come of it until THEY think that as well.
Look, if people believe thugs in caves did all this, what is the possibility of convincing them with much more confusing evidence, that takes actual work to go look up and confirm. They will listen to their talking heads on TV and go on with their lives. I know many people who think something is wrong with the whole scenario, but are not prepared to believe in explosives or anything of the sort.
Hell, I have seen everything and I am not convinced of detonation. I just have not seen evidence I find strong enough to take that exact viewpoint on. If I feel I can argue with conviction about something I do it.
To me the end truth is obvious. The official story is bogus. Beyond that I cannot say with what I consider certainty any other part of the story.
Let me just throw this in: http://www.historycommons.org/project.j ... 11_project it is pretty compelling if you take the time to go through it.
The eyewitnesses. I as a conspiracy researcher have a hard time with this. The fake witnesses were all over that day and inevitably have a louder voice than the real witnesses, since they work for the people who broadcast the news. Who is a double agent, who is a plant, are they simply planting stories the PTB know can be easily debunked?
NIST says WTC7 fell because of fires. This is good enough for most.
It doesn't matter what we think, nothing will come of it until THEY think that as well.
Look, if people believe thugs in caves did all this, what is the possibility of convincing them with much more confusing evidence, that takes actual work to go look up and confirm. They will listen to their talking heads on TV and go on with their lives. I know many people who think something is wrong with the whole scenario, but are not prepared to believe in explosives or anything of the sort.
Hell, I have seen everything and I am not convinced of detonation. I just have not seen evidence I find strong enough to take that exact viewpoint on. If I feel I can argue with conviction about something I do it.
To me the end truth is obvious. The official story is bogus. Beyond that I cannot say with what I consider certainty any other part of the story.
Let me just throw this in: http://www.historycommons.org/project.j ... 11_project it is pretty compelling if you take the time to go through it.
This is a really strong point, Fan. I have to admire that kind of commitment to skepticism. All I can say in rebuttal is this: if some of those FOIA videos are plants, then we need a new kind of Oscar (or is it Academy Award). I found the footage compelling.Fan wrote: The eyewitnesses. I as a conspiracy researcher have a hard time with this. The fake witnesses were all over that day and inevitably have a louder voice than the real witnesses, since they work for the people who broadcast the news. Who is a double agent, who is a plant, are they simply planting stories the PTB know can be easily debunked?
This. I would be damned proud of my country if a majority would simply & openly get here. We don't actually need to know the truth. The implications of the fact that we do not know the truth is enough to move forward.Fan wrote: To me the end truth is obvious. The official story is bogus. Beyond that I cannot say with what I consider certainty any other part of the story.
Thanks for this.Fan wrote: Let me just throw this in: http://www.historycommons.org/project.j ... 11_project it is pretty compelling if you take the time to go through it.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
Basile's point about his samples being consistent with the RJ Lee study's findings cannot be overemphasized.
http://www.techburgher.com/tag/911-dust-signature/
As the above page notes:
"Their work resulted in the establishment of a WTC dust 'signature' that continues to be used to identify dust resulting from the WTC tragedy."
Same goes for the professionally collected samples owned by Millette, (who studied WTC dust for the EPA) which contain the same red chips. Whatever results Basile gets testing them will be repeatable by Millette. If not, then Basile's samples might not be legit. If Millette cannot obtain the same results, more professionally collected samples will be required to have the needed testing performed on them to sort things out.
Also, remember that Basile is having tests run on:
2 samples each of known building primer paint
2 samples each of red chips of suspected primer from building dust
The known building primer paint extracted from his samples can be verified as coming from the WTC, so those samples are definitely legit.
Once the suspected primer from building dust is analyzed it will serve the sample purpose for the samples it came from.
"Your blog is excellent and I will check out the rest of it."
Thanks.
"What I am posting is just my personal observations on this evidence and should not be taken as debunking or downplaying it at all. "
Not taken that way at all. Sorry if my last post made it seem that way.
http://www.techburgher.com/tag/911-dust-signature/
As the above page notes:
"Their work resulted in the establishment of a WTC dust 'signature' that continues to be used to identify dust resulting from the WTC tragedy."
Same goes for the professionally collected samples owned by Millette, (who studied WTC dust for the EPA) which contain the same red chips. Whatever results Basile gets testing them will be repeatable by Millette. If not, then Basile's samples might not be legit. If Millette cannot obtain the same results, more professionally collected samples will be required to have the needed testing performed on them to sort things out.
Also, remember that Basile is having tests run on:
2 samples each of known building primer paint
2 samples each of red chips of suspected primer from building dust
The known building primer paint extracted from his samples can be verified as coming from the WTC, so those samples are definitely legit.
Once the suspected primer from building dust is analyzed it will serve the sample purpose for the samples it came from.
"Your blog is excellent and I will check out the rest of it."
Thanks.
"What I am posting is just my personal observations on this evidence and should not be taken as debunking or downplaying it at all. "
Not taken that way at all. Sorry if my last post made it seem that way.
Last edited by jmtalboo on 12-12-2012 11:49 AM, edited 1 time in total.
fake witness (the most famous) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edrTAh36Do8 but there are lots more. How do you separate the real from fake?
In order to shatter belief in witnesses, photos and videos go read of http://www.cluesforum.info/ - the info in there is also open to skepticism, but much of their material is pretty convincing.
Sorry for going off-topic
In order to shatter belief in witnesses, photos and videos go read of http://www.cluesforum.info/ - the info in there is also open to skepticism, but much of their material is pretty convincing.
Sorry for going off-topic
How do we avoid becoming 'flat earthers'?Fan wrote: I still think the provenance is a potential problem, but this article is a must-read for anyone interested in this.
In other words, aside from direct involvement, is there a scenario anywhere, for anything, where 'provenance' is not questionable? What did you have for breakfast? What was it's earliest known origin point? Do you trust government cultivated 'chain of custody' apparatuses?
Would exif data be enough? Video? Paperwork?
Madness that way lays. Inability to identify reputable source material is at the root of most of our problems, and it gives 'them' a tremendous advantage.
Last edited by SquidInk on 12-12-2012 12:34 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
I am not saying enough provenance for me, I am saying enough for court. Because this has to go to court in order for anything to happen. This is the problem, non-official investigations are too easily fobbed off because they did not follow some rigid procedure. The judge will just toss it out with any sort of defense claim of tampering or problem they could dream up. However, it seems there is some decent evidence that this dust is actually from the WTC, so I am happy about that.SquidInk wrote: How do we avoid becoming 'flat earthers'?
In other words, aside from direct involvement, is there a scenario anywhere, for anything, where 'provenance' is not questionable? What did you have for breakfast? What was it's earliest known origin point? Do you trust government cultivated 'chain of custody' apparatuses?
Would exif data be enough? Video? Paperwork?
I applaud these efforts, and in time they will be accepted as truth I think. Perhaps in the 2112 edition of wikipedia it will say "nanothermite has been shown to have been found in WTC debris", and jmtalboo will be cited and vindicated. I just can't see any official body of investigation who would even allow this evidence (without massive work being done on it, far more than is talked about here) to be presented in court, let alone used as evidentiary material.
Ok, I get your drift, and you are correct.Fan wrote: I am not saying enough provenance for me, I am saying enough for court. Because this has to go to court in order for anything to happen. This is the problem, non-official investigations are too easily fobbed off because they did not follow some rigid procedure. The judge will just toss it out with any sort of defense claim of tampering or problem they could dream up. However, it seems there is some decent evidence that this dust is actually from the WTC, so I am happy about that.
I applaud these efforts, and in time they will be accepted as truth I think. Perhaps in the 2112 edition of wikipedia it will say "nanothermite has been shown to have been found in WTC debris", and jmtalboo will be cited and vindicated. I just can't see any official body of investigation who would even allow this evidence (without massive work being done on it, far more than is talked about here) to be presented in court, let alone used as evidentiary material.
Is that the standard we should be aiming for? I'm not sure it's wise to seek remedy in a state court against the state. If, in our society, the people are indeed the final arbiter, isn't it smarter to build a consensus on the street, and let a more organic process play out? I am not eluding to violence.
I realize that you are talking in terms of 'reality' and I am talking in terms of 'hypotheticals'.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
I think it is good enough for court, but one extra step could ensure that even more. If Basile saves some dust from each sample tested with witnesses from the lab and/or on video, he could then have the saved portions verified by RJ Lee or some qualified lab as being legit. If he gets positive results that is, no point in doing so beforehand as this too will surely be costly.
Last edited by jmtalboo on 12-12-2012 12:56 PM, edited 1 time in total.