July 14, 2011
The "criminal-media nexus" under fire in London [concerning ethics charges against News of the World reporters] draws attention to major news events that have gone unreported by the mainstream press on both sides of the Atlantic.
In 2009, for example, a team of scientists reported that evidence of an advanced explosive, favored by the Pentagon, had been found in the dust of the collapsed World Trade Center towers. This paper came after an admission by the National Institute for Standards and Technology that it had done no forensic tests in its investigation of the collapses.
Yet a search today of Google News for the name of one of the investigators, Niels Harrit, a chemistry professor at the University of Copenhagen, turned up no mainstream news organizations, other than Berliner Umschau, which cited Harrit in an opinion piece.
In the paper, published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal, the scientists told of finding red-gray flakes in various samples of dust and determining that the flakes were from a material similar to that in advanced TBX weaponry.
The team had sought submissions of samples of dust from the public and received containers submitted by people who had decided to save such samples. The only samples used in the study came from the five persons who agreed to let themselves be identified publicly.
There has been no public statement from the FBI on the work of the scientists. However, it may be assumed that the evidence can be ignored based on the fact that the chain of custody is broken. There is no way to be sure that the samples weren't doctored.
And yet, such tampering would seem to have required a technically advanced conspiracy, wherein volunteers working for conspirators either submit doctored material or are able to intercept and switch samples. In other words, a tampering conspiracy would require a sophisticated intelligence operation.
But, the question then arises: if intelligence units were behind the 9/11 attacks, why didn't they intercept the samples and switch them for non-incriminating dust. It seems plausible that honest agents had made such a switch too risky, and that conspirators counted on what Britain's former prime minister, Gordon Brown, denounced as a "criminal-media nexus" that includes not only the Murdoch press, but other news organizations as well.
The report, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, told of igniting the chips and watching them flame. "The evidence for active, highly energetic thermitic material in the WTC dust is compelling," the scientists wrote. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304134023/http://www.diexx88blog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/activethermitic_911.pdf
They said the residues from ignited chips were "strikingly similar" to the chemical signature of commercial thermite. The scientists believed that the thermite residues were consistent with "super-thermite," also known as "nano-thermite," They cited a 2001 report on Defense Department research into "nano-energetics" and thermobaric (TBX) weapons.
Here is such a report:
http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf
[The link is now dead.]
"Super-thermite electric matches" had been developed by Los Alamos National Laboratory for such applications as triggering explosives for demolitions, the experts noted.
The authors said their tests ruled out the possibility that the red chips were flakes of ordinary paint.
However, one of the authors, physicist Steven E. Jones, had already been given the Murdoch treatment for having raised questions over the reliability of official accounts, and it is quite possible that journalists and politicians alike shrank from covering the report out of fear of the "criminal-media nexus" blackball.
Harrit works alongside Thomas Bjorn Holm, head of the Nano-Science Center at the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and may have been able to consult with Bjorn Holm, whose name does not appear on the report.
Jones was a professor at Brigham Young University before being pressured to retire as a result of his 9/11 criticism,
The scientists used advanced technology, including scanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy and differential scanning calorimetry.
One of the authors, Jeffrey Farrer, manages the electron microscopy facility for Brigham Young University's Department of Physics and Astronomy. His research includes nano-particle and thermitic reactions. [He is no longer listed on BYU's faculty page.]
Another author is Kevin R. Ryan, terminated by Underwriters Laboratory after raising technical issues concerning the official 9/11 narrative.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm
[The Wayback Machine archived the page but Wayback is redirected to a page reading "This site can't be reached."]
Physicist Daniel E. Farnsworth, as with a number of experts critical of the government claims about 9/11, is retired and presumably beyond the reach of career retribution incited by the mendacious, criminalized press. Like Jones, Farnsworth taught at Brigham Young. Here is Jones's former BYU page:
https://web.archive.org/web/20161107045428/http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm
Another author, Frank Legge, is an Australian chemist who serves as a co-editor at the Journal of 9-11 Studies.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160330085840/http://scientistsfor911truth.org/mempages/Legge.html
Gregg Roberts, a 9/11 activist, is also listed, but a Google search gives no inkling of his scientific background.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100613080953/http://world911truth.org/tag/gregg-roberts/
James R. Gourley identifies himself as a chemical engineer in an extensive criticism he submitted to the National Institute of Standards and Technology 9/11 investigation.
http://911research.wtc7.net/letters/nist/WTC7Comments.html
Bradley R. Larsen is another author. His firm, S&J Scientific, does not appear to have a web page trackable by Google and his scientific background did not show up in a Google search.
The authors acknowledge conversations with a number of 9/11 critics, including retired naval physicist David L. Griscom and former University of Iowa physicist Crockett Grabbe.
The "criminal-media nexus" under fire in London [concerning ethics charges against News of the World reporters] draws attention to major news events that have gone unreported by the mainstream press on both sides of the Atlantic.
In 2009, for example, a team of scientists reported that evidence of an advanced explosive, favored by the Pentagon, had been found in the dust of the collapsed World Trade Center towers. This paper came after an admission by the National Institute for Standards and Technology that it had done no forensic tests in its investigation of the collapses.
Yet a search today of Google News for the name of one of the investigators, Niels Harrit, a chemistry professor at the University of Copenhagen, turned up no mainstream news organizations, other than Berliner Umschau, which cited Harrit in an opinion piece.
In the paper, published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal, the scientists told of finding red-gray flakes in various samples of dust and determining that the flakes were from a material similar to that in advanced TBX weaponry.
The team had sought submissions of samples of dust from the public and received containers submitted by people who had decided to save such samples. The only samples used in the study came from the five persons who agreed to let themselves be identified publicly.
There has been no public statement from the FBI on the work of the scientists. However, it may be assumed that the evidence can be ignored based on the fact that the chain of custody is broken. There is no way to be sure that the samples weren't doctored.
And yet, such tampering would seem to have required a technically advanced conspiracy, wherein volunteers working for conspirators either submit doctored material or are able to intercept and switch samples. In other words, a tampering conspiracy would require a sophisticated intelligence operation.
But, the question then arises: if intelligence units were behind the 9/11 attacks, why didn't they intercept the samples and switch them for non-incriminating dust. It seems plausible that honest agents had made such a switch too risky, and that conspirators counted on what Britain's former prime minister, Gordon Brown, denounced as a "criminal-media nexus" that includes not only the Murdoch press, but other news organizations as well.
The report, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, told of igniting the chips and watching them flame. "The evidence for active, highly energetic thermitic material in the WTC dust is compelling," the scientists wrote. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304134023/http://www.diexx88blog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/activethermitic_911.pdf
They said the residues from ignited chips were "strikingly similar" to the chemical signature of commercial thermite. The scientists believed that the thermite residues were consistent with "super-thermite," also known as "nano-thermite," They cited a 2001 report on Defense Department research into "nano-energetics" and thermobaric (TBX) weapons.
Here is such a report:
[The link is now dead.]
"Super-thermite electric matches" had been developed by Los Alamos National Laboratory for such applications as triggering explosives for demolitions, the experts noted.
The authors said their tests ruled out the possibility that the red chips were flakes of ordinary paint.
However, one of the authors, physicist Steven E. Jones, had already been given the Murdoch treatment for having raised questions over the reliability of official accounts, and it is quite possible that journalists and politicians alike shrank from covering the report out of fear of the "criminal-media nexus" blackball.
Harrit works alongside Thomas Bjorn Holm, head of the Nano-Science Center at the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and may have been able to consult with Bjorn Holm, whose name does not appear on the report.
Jones was a professor at Brigham Young University before being pressured to retire as a result of his 9/11 criticism,
The scientists used advanced technology, including scanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy and differential scanning calorimetry.
One of the authors, Jeffrey Farrer, manages the electron microscopy facility for Brigham Young University's Department of Physics and Astronomy. His research includes nano-particle and thermitic reactions. [He is no longer listed on BYU's faculty page.]
Another author is Kevin R. Ryan, terminated by Underwriters Laboratory after raising technical issues concerning the official 9/11 narrative.
[The Wayback Machine archived the page but Wayback is redirected to a page reading "This site can't be reached."]
Physicist Daniel E. Farnsworth, as with a number of experts critical of the government claims about 9/11, is retired and presumably beyond the reach of career retribution incited by the mendacious, criminalized press. Like Jones, Farnsworth taught at Brigham Young. Here is Jones's former BYU page:
https://web.archive.org/web/20161107045428/http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/currvitaApril09.htm
Another author, Frank Legge, is an Australian chemist who serves as a co-editor at the Journal of 9-11 Studies.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160330085840/http://scientistsfor911truth.org/mempages/Legge.html
Gregg Roberts, a 9/11 activist, is also listed, but a Google search gives no inkling of his scientific background.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100613080953/http://world911truth.org/tag/gregg-roberts/
James R. Gourley identifies himself as a chemical engineer in an extensive criticism he submitted to the National Institute of Standards and Technology 9/11 investigation.
http://911research.wtc7.net/letters/nist/WTC7Comments.html
Bradley R. Larsen is another author. His firm, S&J Scientific, does not appear to have a web page trackable by Google and his scientific background did not show up in a Google search.
The authors acknowledge conversations with a number of 9/11 critics, including retired naval physicist David L. Griscom and former University of Iowa physicist Crockett Grabbe.
No comments:
Post a Comment