The Back Alley Archives

Criticism of the NIST report on WTC 7 that includes links to many references: http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/08/debunking-nists-conclusions-about-wtc-7.html

And here's the abstract of the paper looking at EPA's sampling:

Investigators monitoring air quality at the World Trade Center, after the September 11th attacks, found extremely high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires. Data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicate striking spikes in levels of benzene, styrene, and several other products of combustion. These spikes occurred on specific dates in October and November 2001, and February 2002. Additionally, data collected by researchers at the University of California Davis showed similar spikes in the levels of sulfur and silicon compounds, and certain metals, in aerosols. To better explain these data, as well as the unusual detection of 1,3-diphenylpropane, the presence of energetic nanocomposites in the pile at Ground Zero is hypothesized.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/

In this rambling defense of his theories, Jones cites an EPA report by Erik Swartz as evidence of the presence of thermite at the WTC: “Large amounts of 1,3 diphenylpropane strongly suggests the high-tech thermite arson used on the WTC buildings...” (bolding mine).

Swartz’s EPA report says nothing of the kind:
One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.http://tinyurl.com/rp7xg

In the report abstract, Swartz says, “In addition, the compound 1,3-diphenylpropane ...was observed, and to our knowledge, this species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling. It has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site.”

Only after Jones’ deceptive comments were publicly criticized did he include Swartz’s explanation in his presentations.

We keep hammering on the Blog that masquerades as an “academic journal” known as http://www.journalof911studies.com/. The predictions I made in a SKEPTIC Magazine article have held out: their content has dried up, and when a wellspring does gurgle up from the muck, it’s something like its last entry, August 2nd’s, by the well-known fraud Kevin Ryan: The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites.

What is a nano-thermite, you ask? Well, as Ryan misinterprets it, it’s a teeny tiny version of a thermite mixture that is orders of magnitude more powerful than its larger-grained namesake. It wouldn’t be a Kevin Ryan entry without a lie or two, and he wastes no time:


The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher
rate of energy release than is seen in “macro” thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites
“high explosives” as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillitson et al 1999).


And, of course, if we actually go to the source he cites (warning: 255 pages long, one of which he uses), we find this claim to be absolutely untrue. A “high explosive” is something that explodes instead of burns. A “low explosive” is the opposite. The article specifically states that its authors are continuing to test the new mixture’s “rate of burn” and that “Thermitic reactions are extreme exothermic reactions that involve a metal reacting with a metallic oxide to form a more stable oxide and the corresponding metal of the reactant oxide,” virtually precluding anyone from honestly thinking that they’re talking about a high explosive.

But most damning of all, the second to last paragraph of the article Ryan uses states:


Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) of this energetic nanocomposite showed an exotherm at ~260?C, indicating that it is indeed energetic, whereas the trace for neat AP shows no exothermic reaction in the absence of the fuel skeleton.


Around two hundred and sixty degrees Celsius? Why, that’s cooler than the jet fuel!

How on earth could Kevin Ryan have missed this? Answer: he couldn’t have. No one could honestly be perusing legitimate resources to update their hysterical quasi-Blog and stumble across a mere one-page article, quote from all over it, and miss that one sentence. At the risk of being redundant, it appears that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are once again trying to deliberately lie to people to give their personal beliefs a veneer of academic plausibility, which they so desperately need but so utterly lack.

The other question is, why did the owner of WTC 7 say they made the decision to "pull it"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

And why was it reported at least 20 minutes prior to the building's collapse that WTC 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing"?

Here's a link to 50 facts about 9/11 that clearly justify my skepticism: http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=676

Your points are all valid. Thanks for the other side of the debate. Like I've said, I'm not sure exactly what I believe except that I am supremely skeptical about the government's story of that day.

You've read about Operation Northwoods, right?

I should also say that I'm well aware of my personal bias against our federal government. My hatred for that entity knows no bounds. We all have our personal bias and it shows in the way we view everything.

I mean, doesn't your wife work for the DOJ or somebody like that? Your phones are probably tapped...you gotta toe the line! :afro:

Just fuckin with ya Z....we do all have our biases though. I admit mine is to rail against the government whenever possible because I believe it to be a manifestation of evil.