Derrrr! Why didn't I think of this sooner?

[leftysergeant]

With all of the dust and air samples taken around GZ, I don't recall seeing any great amount of nitrate residues reported anywhere.

Doesn't that kind of rule out CD, in and of itself?

[DarkMagician]

You fool! The NWO put out their Nitrate vaccums all over the place!

[BenBurch]

Good thinking. It does.

[timhau]

Doesn't that kind of rule out CD, in and of itself?

No, it just proves a cover-up.

[Furi]

Where there also any secure buildings within the "dustification" range that had either Chemical sensors or Sniffer dogs operating within that recorded any sign, don't know NYC so I don't know if that is a "well ChemicalExplosiveSensorsRus had a showroom a couple of streets away" sort of question

[Hokulele]

[CT mode] It just means it wasn't a conventional CD. [/CT mode]

:rolleyes:

[BenBurch]

Chemical sensors were really rare in the pre-911 world.

[Furi]

Chemical sensors were really rare in the pre-911 world.

<CT>Well that's is just not good enough, Don't you find that just a neat little coincidence, I mean if we can put a man on the moon then why can't we have an accurate & reliable multi compound explosive and Hazchem electronic sensor in every plug socket. We demand Answers We Deman Twoof</CT>

heh!

<CT>I mean if we can fake putting a man on the moon! fake! fake!.. Belgium!</CT>

[Drs_Res]

It's so obvious to those who use reason and think outside of the box.
All nitrate residue was burned up in the pyroclastic flows! :solved1

Now, I'll just :scarper:

[gumboot]

Given that the FBI's initial hypothesis was a combined airline and bomb attack, it's more than likely the site was specifically checked for explosive residue.

-Gumboot

[leftysergeant]

It's so obvious to those who use reason and think outside of the box.


Outside the box? I think the twoofers all think INSIDE the box.

The cat's litter box, actually.

That would explain where they get some of the stuff they bring here.

[chillzero]

Given that the FBI's initial hypothesis was a combined airline and bomb attack, it's more than likely the site was specifically checked for explosive residue.

-Gumboot

Yes, but if the FBI were crawling all over the place, and none was found, that only proves it must have been there, and was removed!!!eleventyones!!

[Unfit4Command]

It means that the government went to such great lengths as to remove the nitrate residues from the site. Just because there's no evidence of explosives, doesn't mean they weren't there. In fact, it means they have a higher probability of being there.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

* What level of nitrate residues would we expect to find after a demolition?
* Would any of the tests run on the samples have turned up nitrate residues? That is to say; if there was evidence to be found, would the tests have found it?
* Do any explosives not leave nitrate residues? What kind of evidence would they leave behind? Would any of the tests run on the samples have turned up this evidence?


ETA: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. etc

[Jonnyclueless]

Must be a lot less air outside of the box they keep talking about...

[ZENSMACK89]

With all of the dust and air samples taken around GZ, I don't recall seeing any great amount of nitrate residues reported anywhere.

Doesn't that kind of rule out CD, in and of itself?
Well apparently they missed a few things. They also claimed the air was safe to breathe...

http://wtceo.org/wtcenvironmentalorganizationairissafetobreathe.htm

[Apollo20]

You guys really are a laugh a minute with your BS on this topic!

Why?

Well, here's why:

1. Even the great Gravy admits that the FBI did not carry out any analyses for explosives residues at Ground Zero. Don't you guys know that you wont find what you're not looking for!

2. There are exlosives such as TATP that don't leave nitrate residues.

3. NITRATE residues were found in WTC dust samples analysed by non-FBI types such as the EPA, the RJ Lee Group and researchers such as Loiy and McGee.

Thus in the EPA Report: EPA/600/R-02/028 we have data for a WTC dust sample showing 938 micrograms/g of leachable nitrate.

RJ Lee's Report on Physical Damage and Contamination Analysis give a concentration of leachable nitrate as high as 7280 micrograms/g in a WTC dust sample.

McGee et al. have published a paper in the Journal Environmental Health Perspectives identifying 6496 micrograms/g of leachable nitrate in a WTC dust sample.

4. T. Cahill at UC Davis reported mass spectra showing major NO2- and NO3- ion peaks in a sample of particulate collected at GZ on October 4th 2001. (See his paper in Aerosol Science and Technology published in 2004).

5. A little research by all you smart JREFers would show you that VERY HIGH concentrations of NO2 were recorded in air samples collected at or near GZ in the first few days after 9/11.

[T.A.M.]

Does the presence of Nitrates in the samples you mention, at the concentrations you mention, surprise you, or lead you to any speculations or conclusions Frank/Dr.Greening/Apollo20?

TAM:)

[technoextreme]

1. Even the great Gravy admits that the FBI did not carry out any analyses for explosives residues at Ground Zero. Don't you guys know that you wont find what you're not looking for!
I do know that they can find what you are claiming they weren't looking for without looking for nitrates. They are the FBI. They can figure out lots of information just by looking at the steel columns.

[Dave Rogers]

They are the FBI. They can figure out lots of information just by looking at the steel columns.

As opposed to the truth movement, which prefers to figure out lots of information by not looking at the steel columns.

Dave

[technoextreme]

As opposed to the truth movement, which prefers to figure out lots of information by not looking at the steel columns.

Dave
Well the truth movement does but the FBI actually knows what they are doing.

[tsig]

You guys really are a laugh a minute with your BS on this topic!

Why?

Well, here's why:

1. Even the great Gravy admits that the FBI did not carry out any analyses for explosives residues at Ground Zero. Don't you guys know that you wont find what you're not looking for!

2. There are exlosives such as TATP that don't leave nitrate residues.

3. NITRATE residues were found in WTC dust samples analysed by non-FBI types such as the EPA, the RJ Lee Group and researchers such as Loiy and McGee.

Thus in the EPA Report: EPA/600/R-02/028 we have data for a WTC dust sample showing 938 micrograms/g of leachable nitrate.

RJ Lee's Report on Physical Damage and Contamination Analysis give a concentration of leachable nitrate as high as 7280 micrograms/g in a WTC dust sample.

McGee et al. have published a paper in the Journal Environmental Health Perspectives identifying 6496 micrograms/g of leachable nitrate in a WTC dust sample.

4. T. Cahill at UC Davis reported mass spectra showing major NO2- and NO3- ion peaks in a sample of particulate collected at GZ on October 4th 2001. (See his paper in Aerosol Science and Technology published in 2004).

5. A little research by all you smart JREFers would show you that VERY HIGH concentrations of NO2 were recorded in air samples collected at or near GZ in the first few days after 9/11.

We prostrate ourselves before your awesome intellect.

Your presence amoung is as a quartz headlight is to a deer.

Run us over with your mighty brain and spare us the pain.

Then, watch the door .

[Dave Rogers]

You guys really are a laugh a minute with your BS on this topic!

Why?

Well, here's why:

1. Even the great Gravy admits that [...] Don't you guys know that you wont find what you're not looking for!

[...]

5. A little research by all you smart JREFers would show you that [...]

Thank you for the remaining 75% of your post, which was very helpful and informative.

Dave

[Myriad]

You guys really are a laugh a minute with your BS on this topic!

Why?

Well, here's why:

1. Even the great Gravy admits that the FBI did not carry out any analyses for explosives residues at Ground Zero. Don't you guys know that you wont find what you're not looking for!

2. There are exlosives such as TATP that don't leave nitrate residues.

3. NITRATE residues were found in WTC dust samples analysed by non-FBI types such as the EPA, the RJ Lee Group and researchers such as Loiy and McGee.

Thus in the EPA Report: EPA/600/R-02/028 we have data for a WTC dust sample showing 938 micrograms/g of leachable nitrate.

RJ Lee's Report on Physical Damage and Contamination Analysis give a concentration of leachable nitrate as high as 7280 micrograms/g in a WTC dust sample.

McGee et al. have published a paper in the Journal Environmental Health Perspectives identifying 6496 micrograms/g of leachable nitrate in a WTC dust sample.

4. T. Cahill at UC Davis reported mass spectra showing major NO2- and NO3- ion peaks in a sample of particulate collected at GZ on October 4th 2001. (See his paper in Aerosol Science and Technology published in 2004).

5. A little research by all you smart JREFers would show you that VERY HIGH concentrations of NO2 were recorded in air samples collected at or near GZ in the first few days after 9/11.


Huh. I love learning new stuff here. I always thought that the tests for chemical residues of explosives were looking for specific compounds that are characteristic of explosives. But no, apparently any old nitrates will do, even NO2 (which I'm shocked could ever be found in Manhattan, especially not near the smoke vents for massive uncontrolled undergound fires). So, I guess arson investigators attempting to test for explosive residues are constantly being confounded by false positives from the presence of plant food, sewage, bacon, or hot dogs, right?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Apollo20]

Well, the first bunch of posters on this thread appeared to be using the argument:

No nitrate residues in WTC dust = No CD

And I heard few dissenting voices to this absurd statement.

So I just had to point out that there were lots of nitrate residues in WTC dust samples.

I would now say that this thread should be terminated since it has been proven to be based on a false premiss........

[JimBenArm]

I would now say that this thread should be terminated since it has been proven to be based on a false premiss........
Which Terminator are you? The Arnold-looking one, or the liquid-metal one?

[Disbelief]

Well, the first bunch of posters on this thread appeared to be using the argument:

No nitrate residues in WTC dust = No CD

And I heard few dissenting voices to this absurd statement.

So I just had to point out that there were lots of nitrate residues in WTC dust samples.

I would now say that this thread should be terminated since it has been proven to be based on a false premiss........

But wasn't that a legitimate question by the OP? He said he could not remember and if it was true, it would rule out a CD. Why not just point him to the information he is lacking instead of making snide comments? What purpose does it serve?

[mortimer]

Which Terminator are you? The Arnold-looking one, or the liquid-metal one?

I like to imagine the T-X version. Although not in the context of Dr. Greening.

[leftysergeant]

Aren't NO2 and NO3 part of the normal air pollutiom in a major city? Largely from incomplete combustion of diesel?

[rwguinn]

But wasn't that a legitimate question by the OP? He said he could not remember and if it was true, it would rule out a CD. Why not just point him to the information he is lacking instead of making snide comments? What purpose does it serve?
You ask this of a guy who, as a scientist, believes that a solid reinforced concrete block is very similar to a glass and aluminum covered wall with steel studs...

[Myriad]

Well, the first bunch of posters on this thread appeared to be using the argument:

No nitrate residues in WTC dust = No CD

And I heard few dissenting voices to this absurd statement.

So I just had to point out that there were lots of nitrate residues in WTC dust samples.

I would now say that this thread should be terminated since it has been proven to be based on a false premiss........


Good point. (I don't think the thread needs to be executed, but...) I interpreted the initial comments as claiming that no high levels of suspicious nitrite compounds associated with explosive residue were found in the environmental testing. But I see your point now: the posts as worded actually say that no nitrates at all were found, which is not true. And no evidence has been offered that general environmental testing would be expected to detect explosive residue or differentiate it from nitrates in general.

The misunderstanding is mine and I take full responsibility to it. I'll try to be more careful in the future. However, I wish that you'd helped me avoid such misunderstanding when you presented your five points of evidence, by stating more specifically (it would have just taken a short sentence) what claim or argument (other than JREFers being a laugh a minute) you were presenting the evidence in support of.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[rwguinn]

Good point. (I don't think the thread needs to be executed, but...) I interpreted the initial comments as claiming that no high levels of suspicious nitrite compounds associated with explosive residue were found in the environmental testing. But I see your point now: the posts as worded actually say that no nitrates at all were found, which is not true. And no evidence has been offered that general environmental testing would be expected to detect explosive residue or differentiate it from nitrates in general.

The misunderstanding is mine and I take full responsibility to it. I'll try to be more careful in the future. However, I wish that you'd helped me avoid such misunderstanding when you presented your five points of evidence, by stating more specifically (it would have just taken a short sentence) what claim or argument (other than JREFers being a laugh a minute) you were presenting the evidence in support of.

Respectfully,
Myriad

no need--everyone except the obsessively pedantic knew what was actually being discussed. The need to find that others are wrong is apparently stronger than the need to be right.

[leftysergeant]

What did they find that was specific to explosives, compared to combustion by-products? Nothing raised a red flag, as far as I can see. No one seems to have pointed out a discrepency.

[tsig]

Well, the first bunch of posters on this thread appeared to be using the argument:

No nitrate residues in WTC dust = No CD

And I heard few dissenting voices to this absurd statement.

So I just had to point out that there were lots of nitrate residues in WTC dust samples.

I would now say that this thread should be terminated since it has been proven to be based on a false premiss........

Attitude counts for a lot.

Makes it hard to see content.

Do you always add"as any idiot should know" to your comments?

[leftysergeant]

I would still need to know what sorts of levels of these compounds are always present around New York and the industrial areas around the city.

What common non-HE materials produce them when burned? What specific nitrates and other chemical compounds would be expected around a CD site?

Perhaps a link to the source might help. I have a problem wading through some of the reports. They are apparently written for a researcher with some training in chemistry. But I do not recall anyone's having noted what they found as remarkable, aside from some really complex organic compounds in the smoke, which can be traced back to plastics burning at low temperatures in an oxygen-starved environment.

[ktesibios]

Aren't NO2 and NO3 part of the normal air pollutiom in a major city? Largely from incomplete combustion of diesel?

Internal combustion engines, whether Otto cycle or Diesel, produce nitrogen oxides (NOx) when the temperature of the burning fuel-air mixture is high enough to cause the nitrogen and oxygen in the air to react. NOx emissions are one of the items measured (NOx, CO and unburned hydrocarbons) when you take your car in for a smog test.

So I would expect to find some NOx in city air as a matter of course. What the typical concentrations are, or whether they could be mistaken for explosive traces I know not.

One thing I've wondered about: AFAIK, the actual reaction products of most high explosives tend to be things like nitrogen gas, water, carbon, CO2... stuff that wouldn't necessarily stick around the scene for very long or be inherently suspicious by their presence.

So what is it that investigators look for when testing for the use of explosives? Is it tiny bits of unreacted explosive blown into the surroundings? Does anyone know?

[leftysergeant]

Internal combustion engines, whether Otto cycle or Diesel, produce nitrogen oxides (NOx) when the temperature of the burning fuel-air mixture is high enough to cause the nitrogen and oxygen in the air to react. NOx emissions are one of the items measured (NOx, CO and unburned hydrocarbons) when you take your car in for a smog test.

So I would expect to find some NOx in city air as a matter of course. What the typical concentrations are, or whether they could be mistaken for explosive traces I know not.

One thing I've wondered about: AFAIK, the actual reaction products of most high explosives tend to be things like nitrogen gas, water, carbon, CO2... stuff that wouldn't necessarily stick around the scene for very long or be inherently suspicious by their presence.

So what is it that investigators look for when testing for the use of explosives? Is it tiny bits of unreacted explosive blown into the surroundings? Does anyone know?

Okay, I am not a chemist, but i would expect that anything identifiable as explosive residue would need to be a soilid to be of much use. for forensic purposes, and, to the best of my knowledge, No2 and NO3 are gases, so testing for them would be pretty much useless at any point.

R.J Lee, mentioned in Apollo's post, was workjing for the owners of the Deutsche Bank, planning demolitions. They would have noted explosive residues, and it would have been in their financial interest to point it out to their employers should they find such evidence as would support CD, because of the law suits for damages that would have to result. I am sure that the insurance companies had their noses inmto this, as well, and would have had some monetary motivation to spill the beans.

[orphia nay]

...
What specific nitrates and other chemical compounds would be expected around a CD site?
...

I can't answer for all explosives, but I've seen others here mention that barium nitrate should have been found if it was a thermite demolition (not that thermite is "explosive" per se).

Steven Jones has not provided evidence of barium nitrate, AFAIK.

[leftysergeant]

Steven Jones has not provided evidence of barium nitrate, AFAIK.

Wouldn't matter if he did. There is some barium in every building. You may be sitting within inches of, even on some right now.

If the walls of the room you are in are white, there may be as much as a pound of it there.

Given the complexity of the fires, I should think there would be all sorts of compounds of barium forming and decomposing as they react with other chemicals.

[OldTigerCub]

Simple answer to why no nitrates were found:
This is a nitrate---->:crc:<------This is an NWO nitrate eliminator.
The WTC was full of the latter (just a very small version of the ones in the sewers).

I've been dying to use that emoticon for something....I just couldn't come up with a good excuse.:blush:

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Given the complexity of the fires, I should think there would be all sorts of compounds of barium forming and decomposing as they react with other chemicals.


Yeah, but... apparently the physical world isn't that complex to most of these nutjobs. Gotta love a group that thinks the interaction between political and military organizations is more complex than the make-up of the universe and its interaction with itself.