You believe that this woman may have not gotten her sample from the ground zero. Alright, fine. I have no conclusive evidence that she did. Why she would fake it, I have no idea, but I'm sure you can come up with some theory or other.
Hmm. I have a specific suspicion, yes.
And what might that be?
That it's a hoax.
The 'question' was, why would she fake it?
But that isn't the glaring hole. The glaring hole is the dust in the first place, since it excites all the other 'leads', and is the single most important part of the story.
How is the most important part of the story a 'glaring hole'? In any case, if you don't want to call it a glaring hole, what -would- you call NIST's weak attempts to justify why it hasn't tested for thermite in its steel samples?
I would call it a glaring hole because it wasn't sourced. Despite the below, I still don't call it sourced.
Perhaps you are employing a form of Bush Science, wherein sources aren't sources. Creating your own reality, if you will, something like what a New York Times magazine writer quoted a Bush aid as saying:
**********************************************
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
**********************************************
http://www.cs.umass.edu/~immerman/play/opinion05/WithoutADoubt.html
Why did Ms. MacKinlay collect some of the dust? It strikes me as very strange indeed.
From Steven Jones' "Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method":
*****************************************
The World Trade Center Dust and the Message of its Iron-rich Microspheres
The provenience of the dust sample used in my study is from an apartment at 113 Cedar St. in New York City. This fourth-floor apartment was the residence of Janette MacKinlay, and was approximately 100 meters or so from the closest Tower, the South Tower. During the collapse of the South Tower on 9/11/2001, the windows of this apartment broke and the apartment was flooded with dust. About a week later, she re-entered the apartment and began clean-up and preserved some of the dust in her apartment.
In this way, the dust represents a snapshot of the WTC collapse, for the dust came from the collapsing Towers and was collected before much clean-up began. Even though the Towers were some distance away, too far for any significant debris from the clean-up operations which were just beginning to accidentally contaminate the apartment, yet they were close enough for the windows to break due to the debris of the South Tower collapse and for the apartment to be filled with collapse- generated dust.
Janette told me that she had a sense, almost a spiritual or reverential feeling (knowing the origin of the dust) to preserve some of it, which she did, placing dust from her apartment into a plastic bag. My first 9/11-related paper appeared on-line in November 2005, and Janette MacKinlay soon learned from it that I was seeking WTC dust and other samples for study. She contacted me and sent me a small sample by mail. Later, I traveled to her new residence in California and obtained a second small sample in the presence of other scientists.
*****************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
How do we know it was preserved and stored correctly, uncontaminated? I note she's an artist. What other chemicals exist in her apartment that could generate the same signature?
Steven Jones' makes it clear that the -only- thing that could have done it was thermate. Not exactly something an artist would stock up on.
Some of the other statements strike me a little oddly too.
Such as?
Janette MacKinlay is a visual artist, and a survivor of the World Trade Center attacks. On September 11th, she watched the drama unfold from her apartment across the street from the World Trade Center.
She was across the street. It doesn't exactly strike me as a "survivor" tale, to be honest, broken glass notwithstanding.
I'm not sure as to the likelihood of her death if she were to have stayed in her apartment. But the term 'survivor' can also be applied to people who have been emotionally traumatized by an event. I think you should reread this sentence:
"Janette wrote a book about her experiences entitled Fortunate: A Personal Diary of 9/11 illustrated with photographs including the artwork, and ikebana flower arrangements she created, as part of her own efforts to heal."
Moreover, her history strikes me - in the days of Bill Ayers and his planned 'eugenics' program on unrectifiable Republicans - as a little...fishy. Is that pilchard I smell?
Beats me what you're smelling. It seems that you're hell bent on not accepting 9/11 as anything other then what the mass media tells you it was and denying any other possibility. I'm guessing from the above statement that you yourself are a republican. Is that the case?
Janette wrote a book about her experiences entitled Fortunate: A Personal Diary of 9/11 illustrated with photographs including the artwork, and ikebana flower arrangements she created, as part of her own efforts to heal. Exhibitions of her artwork, included Deception Dollars.
Hmm. Odd title.
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2005/06/131248.php
http://www.sf911truth.org/contest.html
Not exactly
undecided, is she?
Not now, no. I have no idea what her stance was immediately after 9/11. On 9/11 and for sometime after (perhaps about a year), I believed the official story. This changed, however, the more I read up on what happened. I have no idea when she decided that 9/11 was an inside job, but it seems clear that she feels that way now.
By cosmic synchronicity, the Deception Dollar artist emailed me her name and phone number on the very day that I met Janette, in person, in San Francisco where members of the 9/11 Commission were speaking before the Commonwealth Club. I traded her a David Ray Griffin book- The New Pearl Harbor for a copy of her book, and that was the beginning of our friendship and collaboration. Janette joined the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance and became a vital, active member, treasurer, host, organizer, speaker, as well as a liason between the West Coast and New York City, when she decided to return to her refurbished apartment when she discovered it was available to rent.
If I'm not mistaken, the Commission was with the Commonwealth Club (no invitation for me, naturally) on Sept 6, 2004? So she was well into the movement at this time.
Sounds reasonable.
When did she send this material to Dr. Jones? Steve announced his findings in 2007, not so?
Not sure as to when he announced his findings. As to when she sent him the material:
*****************************************
My first 9/11-related paper appeared on-line in November 2005, and Janette MacKinlay soon learned from it that I was seeking WTC dust and other samples for study. She contacted me and sent me a small sample by mail.
*****************************************
Curious. A three-year time lag at the very least.
You were mistaken as to when he received the sample, so perhaps you're also mistaken as to when Steven Jones announced his findings.
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
******************************
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
I thank you. However, having looked at their argument on that page, it's reasonably compelling: they have no evidence of a controlled demolition at this time.
Their reasoning has already been debunked. Here is its refutation once more:
********************************************
In question 12 NIST states that, “Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening.”iv Now, bear in mind that NIST admittedly did not test available WTC steel samples for “explosives or thermite residues.”v Therefore, NIST’s above response seems more of a rhetorical answer to a hypothetical set of facts regarding the use of thermite. So, I will also address the use of thermite in hypothetical terms, as it is the scientists who must test the material (to the extent it still exists) for such substances. It is the scientists who must review and interpret the data.
The operative word used by NIST in their answer to question 12 regarding “duration for cut” is the word “can”.vi This is not a parsing of words. NIST states that thermite “can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening.” In actual fact, thermite also “can” cut through a structural steel target material in less than one second.vii Moreover, there are at least two devices that have the capability of cutting through steel in a matter of fractions of a second.viii
Next, in NIST’s hypothetical, they state that the thermite would “need to have been somehow held in direct contact” with the target material (In this case, we are referring to structural steel). Here the operative words are “need to have been.” NIST claims that thermite must be held in direct contact with structural steel in order for it to slice through it.x
Does thermite have to be held in direct contact with structural steel in order for it to react and slice through the target material? No. To the contrary, an apparatus developed in 1999-2001 actually requires that the nozzle of the linear thermite cutting apparatus be at a “controlled stand-off” distance from the target material.” The term “stand-off distance” is defined as having the elongated nozzle positioned “generally adjacent” to a target material to be cut.xii The term “generally adjacent” is further defined as requiring the nozzle to be approximately 1/16 inch to 1⁄4 inch away from the target material (depending on the thickness of the material to be cut).xiii Moreover, the “somehow held” aspect of NIST’s statement is readily dealt with in available patents.xiv The ease that such devices can be attached to a target surface is quite evident, and can be accomplished by various conventional means.xv
NIST also raises the issue of inconspicuous placement of thermite in their hypothetical. NIST intimates that such surreptitious placement of hypothetical incendiaries would not be possible. Although the issue of inconspicuous behavior is not a scientific matter, the patents do suggest accommodations for ease of deployment in the field .xvi
NIST next states that ignition of the apparatus would likely be by remote. Assuming NIST’s claim regarding remote detonation is correct, it seems that various embodiments of the linear thermite cutting device do address NIST’s concerns quite admirably. For example, the device patented in February 2001 indicates that conventional fuses from “Pyrofuse Corporation in Mt. Vernon, N.Y.” may be utilized as the activation device and can be accessed for remote ignition.xvii
So as can be seen, NIST (in an apparent effort to “debunk” some sound questions surrounding the WTC disaster) has created an unnecessary mystique around data and technology--much of which has been available for over half a decade. Rather than dismiss such data, NIST should test available steel samples for residues of thermite and other anomalous substances.
********************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...stions-Regarding-Thermite-by-Robert-Moore.pdf
