Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hard Evidence For Controlled Demolition

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 05:14 PM
Original message
Hard Evidence For Controlled Demolition
Edited on Sat Mar-18-06 05:25 PM by medienanalyse
Wouldm`t it be nice to have evidence ? Dear conspiracy theorists, "physical evidence" nuts, pixel examiners - why don t you PROVE what you say ? You feel unable without the steel?

Forget it. You have better evidence at hand.

1. About 40.000 people worked in the WTC, "only" 3.000 are dead. So you might be able to find at least ONE of those 37.000 who has noticed "Controlled Demolition"-workers placing explosives, spreading cables, drillin holes.

Even if this work was done at night - there will be some people who noticed the new cables, the dust on their desks, the smell. Go and find them, they are reliable in the public as potential victims.

2. I know. I forgot. Best is physical evidence! You can obtain it. Thousands of tons. Even nowadays. Go to Manhattan and ask one of the residents there for some grams of the amonts of dust which covered the streets, buildings and cars these days. Or go to just one of the corners. You will find dust enogh by scatchin a littel bit. It is impossible not to find dust.

Take it and put it into a mass spectrometer at one of the universities. You wiull find the characteristics of the explosive which was used.


What can I conclude if you do not find what I propose ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. I sucked at chemistry
Edited on Sat Mar-18-06 05:32 PM by DoYouEverWonder


But here's some data about the WTC dust. What it means is for someone else to figure out.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/index.html





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
80. Makeup
Edited on Sun Mar-19-06 06:10 PM by simonm
Thermite:
 
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Magnesium (for ignition)

High Explosive (i.e. RDX military):
    
     Calcium
     Sulfur
     Aluminum

Silicon and calcium are contained in wall board and concrete.
I'm still wondering where the aluminum, sulfur and magnesium
powder came from. Aluminum and sulfur are used in many types
of explosives. 

Most of the remaining elements are common in computer monitors
and electronic devices.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. That charts shows an elemental analysis
Edited on Sun Mar-19-06 07:04 PM by LARED
Gypsum is full of sulfur and would be seen in an elemental analysis. http://webmineral.com/data/Gypsum.shtml

Vermiculite has nearly 40 percent SiO2, 20% Al2O3 and 13% MgO so you have a source for Silica, aluminum and magnesium.

http://mmtclimited.org/vermi.html

In case you are unaware the perimeter column has vermiculite plaster between the steel column and the Aluminum facade. Something like 8 million pounds of it. It is 18% sulfur in the SO3 form

Edit to remove comment about magnesium powder as I mistakenly thought magnesium powder was an oxide not pure magnesium

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #80
83. Here's another chart from the USGS site


Showing not only the amounts of heavy metals but the locations of the sampling. Samples for this report were taken from multiple locations including inside the building and from the steel girders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
file83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. Fun with TYPOS!!! How many can YOU find? Let's count...
Edited on Sat Mar-18-06 06:07 PM by file83
Wouldm`t it be nice to have evidence ? Dear conspiracy theorists, "physical evidence" nuts, pixel examiners - why don t you PROVE what you say ? You feel unable without the steel?

Forget it. You have better evidence at hand.

1. About 40.000 people worked in the WTC, "only" 3.000 are dead. So you might be able to find at least ONE of those 37.000 who has noticed "Controlled Demolition"-workers placing explosives, spreading cables, drillin holes.

Even if this work was done at night - there will be some people who noticed the new cables, the dust on their desks, the smell. Go and find them, they are reliable in the public as potential victims.

2. I know. I forgot. Best is physical evidence! You can obtain it. Thousands of tons. Even nowadays. Go to Manhattan and ask one of the residents there for some grams of the amonts of dust which covered the streets, buildings and cars these days. Or go to just one of the corners. You will find dust enogh by scatchin a littel bit. It is impossible not to find dust.

Take it and put it into a mass spectrometer at one of the universities. You wiull find the characteristics of the explosive which was used.


What can I conclude if you do not find what I propose ?


I count 8, not including the gross grammatical errors. Did I miss any other typos?

Your "proposal" is ludicrous, at best. It's been 4.5 years since 9/11 occured. All the 9/11 "dust" would be contaminated by now, don't you think? Seriously, don't you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Out of line
This is not a substantive critique. medienanalyse is not a native English speaker and it's quite irrelevant how many typos he makes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
file83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. It being 4.5 years since 9/11 isn't a "substantive" critique?
Show me some pure, uncontaminated dust from 9/11/01, and I'll show you how to turn straw into gold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Perhaps it would be better if medienanalyse were to post in German. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jschurchin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. May I ask you a Question.
Do you work in an office building?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
6. So what are the chemical characteristics of thermite
which is the explosive of choice among tin foil hatters?

I believe all of those components are found in the chemical analysis of the WTC dust that I posted above.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. 5-10 ppm of Uranium?
From what I wonder, the thermonuclear reactor in the basement of every Manhattan highrise?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #7
23. Does uranium turn up
in NYC dust normally?

It would be nice to know where it came from?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #23
34. Dunno, but that's 50-100 pounds of uranium
per 5,000 tons of dust, which is a reasonable estimate.

And 50-100 pounds of uranium do not occur naturally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. According to the chart, they found about 10 ppm of uranium
Edited on Sun Mar-19-06 12:04 PM by DoYouEverWonder
How many tons of debris did the WTC create?

edit: 1.46 million tons went to the Staten Island landfill.

How much uranium does that equal?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Perhaps from old smoke detectors
Some smoke detectors are known to contain Uranium.

http://www.orau.org/PTP/collection/consumer%20products/smokedetector.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. And glow-in-the dark watch dials.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. Good question. The usual guestimate is 500,000 tons
Edited on Sun Mar-19-06 12:22 PM by dailykoff
per tower. If one percent of that was converted into dust, that would have released 5,000 tons of dust, and about 50-100 pounds of uranium, per tower.

But let's say half of each tower turned into dust. That would give us about 5,000-10,000 pounds of uranium.

And five tons is a lot of yellowcake!

Weight of towers:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4299
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. p.s. short answer: 5,000-10,000 pounds of uranium. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #36
47. Weight of WTC
The above-ground portion of each tower weighed 250,000 tons (NIST report, p. 32/82). It probably breaks down roughly as 90,000 tons of steel, 80,000 tons of concrete and 80,000 tons of machinery, etc.

Many sites claim it's 500,000 tons, but that's probably the weight of the whole initial complex (i.e. including the basements - and all the concrete in them - plus maybe some of the other buildings) divided by 2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. This article says there was 600,000 tons of fine particle dust
and out of a total of 1.46 million tons of debris.


The 1.46 million tons of Trade Center debris dumped in the Staten Island landfill have been at the center of a dispute between the city and a family group, W.T.C. Families for Proper Burial, since 2002. The family members contend that remnants of their loved ones are intermingled with the 600,000 tons of fine particle dust there. The city insists the human remains were removed.

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_146/cb1lashesoutatstate.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #50
61. 5-10 ppm = 6,000-12,000 pounds of uranium
at least by my calculation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #50
74. That doesn't make any sense
Where would 600,000 tons of fine particle dust have come from? If you ask me, it's so unrealistic that it must be aurally extracted. How can 40% of the entire complex (i.e. all 7 buildings including the basement) have been pulverised into fine particle dust?

What they've done is taken the number of trucks reported to go there (92,000), multiplied it by the volume of debris a truck was supposed to carry (6 tons) and then rounded the figure up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #74
77. Most of the buildings were concrete and wallboard
therefore lot's of dust.

I still have no clue why two buildings would disintergrate but they did. How, short of a nuclear explosion, I don't know?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #77
84. It's hard not to reach that conclusion.
For one thing, the buildings didn't just tumble, but apparently vaporized, and for another, five or six tons of uranium is an extraordinary quantity of radioactive material.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. Tests
Has anyone tested the area for radiation? If the variables are correct it could mean depleted uranium was used.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. None that I know of.
Who would have conducted and published one? The EPA under Christine Whitman? One of Rudy's municipal agencies? But I'll look around.

p.s. I recently saw an article about a spike in birth defects in children of parents living near ground zero. I'll look for that too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. p.s. looks like one of those "heckuva job" situations:
Apparently the entire NYC Emergency Management Agency, which included the Division of Environmental Health Services, got nuked:

"It’s important to note that the New York City Emergency Management Agency – which is very well organized and well funded – lost its entire operation center, which was formerly located in the World Trade Center."

Another unfortunate coincidence. :sarcasm:

http://www.cdcfoundation.org/frontline/2001/observations_from_ground_zero.aspx
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-22-06 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #86
110. Birth defects article:
Babies Born Near WTC Site Feel Effects Of Terror Attacks
NY1 News
March 22, 2006

A Columbia University study shows that pregnant women and their newborns were affected by toxins released into the air on and after September 11th.

Columbia's Center for Children's Environmental Health is following 300 non-smoking women who lived within two miles of the twin towers and were pregnant when the attacks happened.

The study says babies born to these women were smaller and had lower birth weights than babies born farther away.

An investigator told the New York Post that the DNA in at least half the babies in the study had significant levels of toxins that could increase their risk of cancer. The study began in December 2001, and it is still ongoing.

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=57743
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #77
91. I doubt it
There was undoubtedly lots of dust, but most of the buildings were not concrete and wallboard (at least not by weight) - they were primarily steel buildings, although due to the floors, the concrete weighed almost as much as the steel (say 10% less). Concrete and wallboard accounted for about 35-40% of the buildings' weight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #91
92. You admit that almost 50% of the building
was concrete and wallboard, then would you expect almost 50% of the debris to be dust?

Here's a pic - I see a lot of small particle debris.

.html?dfg

Also notice how overloaded that truck is. Under normal circumstances they would never be allowed to drive down the street in NYC loaded like that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #92
94. From the photos I'd say it was closer to 90%.
Basically the top 100+ floors of both towers are missing, including just about all of the structural cores.

How it all vaporized is a question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Thermite composition
Basic thermite is aluminum powder and iron oxide (rust). Sulfer can be added for more power.

Those are the top ingredients on the list.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #8
28. Iron oxide is also what magnetic computer disks are made of ..
what's the more likely source?

Iron(III) oxide is often used in magnetic storage, for example in the magnetic layer of floppy disks. These consist of a thin sheet of PET film, coated with iron(III) oxide. The particles can be magnetized to represent binary data.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron%28III%29_oxide
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. LOL - Finely pulverized floppy disks
Floppy disks? c’mon hack89, you could do better than that. Iron is found in many things. It can be easily explained.

However, how do you account for the high aluminum and sulfur content? Pulverized computer cases? haha.

(Aluminum powder and sulfer are used in many explosives)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #37
52. Sulfur is easy to explain
Wall board is full of sulfur
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #52
59. Steel Sulfidation is not easy to explain
Here is proof of steel sulfidation which supports the WTC demolition theory.


The ASCE's Disclosures of Steel Sulfidation

One of the more interesting parts of FEMA's report is Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination in which the investigators revealed that examination of the macro- and micro-structure of specimens of the steel show that it was rapidly corroded by sulfidation. Appendix C concludes with:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #59
73. The chart indicates
the elemental composition of the dust.

Exactly how does steel sulfidation support demolition theory? I'm dying too know. Wow me with your knowledge of eutectic corrosion.

Sulfidation indicates the steel saw temperatures near 1000 deg C and there were sulfur compounds on the steel. Low melting point eutectic phenomenon are not indications of explosives.

Any proof?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouvet_Island Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #52
104. I asked you before, but how do you liberate sulfur
from gypsum to use in a chemical reaction with steel? What temperature does it burn?

I was under the impression it wasn't very reactive.

I am really asking, it aint rethorical. If you have a theory about the curios swiss cheese steel, please post it.

DU is probably possible to use in a cutter charge, though I am not sure if it has any particular advantage over copper cutting charges. A DU round uses kinetic energy and makes its own heat on impact by friction. You would maybe need less explosives for a DU cutter charge, though I don't know at all. Seems a bit unlikely as it would leave a signature though. It'd be interesting to know the isotope(s). I would think the accuracy is a lot lower for the low concentrations, that you would need a lot higher samples to say anything meaningful about them than about the ones over 1%. There are several radioactive materials in there, which really is a bit strange. But then, there are ppms of about everything in normal seawater. I think using a crude mean for assessing the amount of uranium is imprecise, probably use the low number if there isn't more information or samples.

Is there an explanation why they didn't analyse mercury? It is highly poisonous, and used in blast caps.

Notice this line:

Loss on Ignition % 7.96 13.6 19.6 19.6 18.1
WTC 01-02 WTC 01-03 WTC01-05 WTC01-06 WTC 01-14

That is a high variation ... and where your organic explosive residue would be. If they used explosives that would leave traces. Fishing for an unknown explosive residue years after the fact, it aint particularly simple. They could have simply evaporated, and proving organic benzen-connections present wouldn't exactly generate war type headlines. I think you would have to test for each one, and prove the amounts to be inconsistant with (unknown) amounts of chemicals present in the WTC that your opponent would be at the liberty of inventing on the fly, an argument that I doubt would be useable to convert even people with knowledge about chemistry even if it was "a good case".

The amount and smallness of Dust in my lay man opinon seem to indicate shock waves. It is hard to make carbon or mostly anything that fine by grinding, as everyone that tried to make black powder knows. There's some brutal impacts there, but it doesn't seem to be in proportion to either the amount or grade of dust. There are also wtc paper with lots of tiny small uniform holes. It is hard to get a lot of velocity on small particles without them traveling in the front of high speed shockwaves. The ones from compressing the air withing the structure, first I doubt there was much problems for that air to escape in the first place (to the sides and through the shrapnel field) and second I doubt it got very high pressures or velocities, though probably some potential energy. A heavy rainfall have a lot of potential energy, but a water jet cutter is better at making holes in steel. If you have a spool of wire, to make it into tiny fragments you should place an explosive inside it, not drop a heavy steel column on top of it even though the steel might have more potential energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-21-06 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #104
109. Re:
The chart I was referring to is an elemental analysis. You do not require an reaction to liberate the Sulfur as the test determines the elements of the sample.

Your question is in regards to the eutectic corrosion found on steel beams, and how sulfur was liberated, causing the inter-granular corrosion. The simple answer is I'm not sure. The sulfur could have come from any number of sources in the rubble. One potential sources is gypsum. Yes, it's true that gypsum does not easily decompose to it reactants, but it is possible under the right conditions.

In literature I have reviewed gypsum does start to decompose at high temperatures. At least 1000 C. We know that temperature is close to temperature seen in the WTC debris pile. We also know that the underground fire lasted for weeks. This is important because reactions are always time dependant. Some reactions are very slow and some are very fast and lots are in the middle.

What this leads me to believe is that the gypsum is a real candidate as a sulfur source because we have high temps, and relatively long times for the reaction to take place.

BTW a link to the source in post would be helpful, as I has no idea where it came from.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouvet_Island Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-22-06 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. The source's link
is in post 1, the "chemistry table" linked from there. Could have posted that, I agree.

I asked you about this in another thread were I got the impression it was the swiss cheese theory that were discussed, I agree with your point that the sulphur here would come from gyspum, any additional sulphur from thermite, I doubt it would amount to much.

It'd be interesting to hear more about your theory when it is more solid, with reactions, temperatures and all in place.

Just discovered it is possible to make a very hot thermite with CaSo4/Aluminium oxide , mixing 87%/13%. What I read was from "science" eg. fireworks sites, it said it needs a *very* high temperature to ignite, I got the impression that you 1000C would be rather moderate for igniting gypsum.

A note on thermite is that if you polute it, it'll burn but now much slower and cooler. There are projects using thermite as a fuel in Africa, to help with the pollution from open wood fires in the houses, which doesn't burn very clean.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-21-06 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #37
105. pretty funny..nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Forgot magnesium
Magnesium strips are used to start the reaction in thermite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Thermite isn't actually an explosive, is it?
It just makes it really hot and is added to explosives. Hot enough to cut steel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 05:18 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. Then what other chemicals
would be involved?

I've provided a link in my first post to the governement's analysis of the dust, so we don't have to play guessing games.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #15
35. Calcium is contained in RDX military explosives
RDX can explain the high amount of calcium and aluminum powder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDX

The composition for the drywall and/or concrete could contain similar ingredients so I wouldn’t rule them out either.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #35
79. You know
Calcium is a component of human bodies too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #11
33. Thermite is great for cutting steel
Thermite is not a high explosive. It can cut through solid steel but is not capable of pulverizing concrete.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #33
51. Neither are 757's
nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #51
58. I thought the discussion was about the World Trade Center. ( n/t )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #33
88. Another thing about thermite
it provides it's own oxygen - do fires buried in rubble can keep burning, for example...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #88
90. Is there any other substance
Edited on Mon Mar-20-06 08:11 AM by DoYouEverWonder
that can create it's own oxygen that could have caused the fires to burn under the building after the buildings collapsed?

I would have thought that most of the fire would have extinguished itself during the collapse? Why did it keep burning deep down under the rubble?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #90
96. You know, I haven't checked
I was just being a "thermite cheerleader". Actually thermite is part iron oxide; the oxide being the oxygen, so I wonder if rust (isn't that iron oxide?)provides oxygen? But, thermite might actually create the oxygen in the "thermite reaction" . I'm not sure. I just stick those tidbits I've read somewhere in whenever I can before I forget. Dr. Jones wrote it in his paper.
You know people criticize Dr Jones, but all he really does is try to make a case to open the investigation, which is perfectly reasonable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #6
19. Top two elements: Silicon and Calcium.
Edited on Sun Mar-19-06 07:14 AM by dailykoff
Silicon -- Chief component of asbestos;

Calcium -- Chief component of human bones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #19
45. Easily explained
Edited on Sun Mar-19-06 12:35 PM by simonm
Drywall or concrete also has silicon and calcium.

I wonder what pulverized them into fine powder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-21-06 04:22 AM
Response to Reply #19
107. The things is
Edited on Tue Mar-21-06 04:35 AM by mirandapriestly
thermite and calcium nitrate for example are both broken down into things which can be explained by something else. I am sure this is true for other substances which cause heat or explode & could have been used. I'm sure someone thought of this, if you know what I mean. Whatever was used is probably something that can be broken down into "innocent" elements.

For example silicone:
Thanks to a classic case of accidental discovery, researchers at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) have found that silicon -- the material used to make computer chips -- has explosive properties when combined with the right elements and ignited by an electrical charge.

http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/16015.html

I'm not saying that they used it, but, I'm just sayin'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
12. medieanalyse, I think Prof Jones
requested some dust for analysis. I can't remember the details, but he is trying to do that. I don't really trust what they will send, but...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 04:30 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Unable to think. Unable to write correctly. I am so sorry....
The remarks in this thread show what a bunch of "expertise" is avalable when we ask "physical evidence" fans.

My typos seem to be important ? The argument is so primitive that I do not even argue about it. But I might show my "work" to my old teacher. If he is still alive, after 40 years passed since I learned this language.

What is an explosive? What ingredients does it have, must it have, can we find: no clarity - not in the most basic questions. How substantial will be the results then ....


"contamination". Yes i cannot think. I am so dumb to try to understand what contamination might mean. In my idiot head I worked out: material is added post 9/11: more dust, water, traffic dust, oh my god so much is added. Every second day the same amont as on 911, I believe. Manhattan is dust-covered. No ? I rethink it again. If you add material the old material vanishes. It melts away like snow. After 4 or five years you have the glacier effect: old dust including explosive is off, gone and away, and new dust covers the corners. I am so dumb - but now I understand it correctly. How is it possible to find out the age and origin of wooden medieeval ships, of old egyptian meals, roman antiquities. These scientists do not know who contaminated it is, all the old dust. They do not think. They should ask "file83" for the glaier effect of dust material.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #13
72. I didn't say anything about your spelling
or your intelligence. I just said that I believe Dr jones is trying to get some dust analyzed. I would like to see the "official" version proved with physical evidence, what do you think of that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
98. Who here claims "expertise" or "proof" with "physical evidence"?
No one. this is a discussion group of posters who are trying to figure out what happened. What you are describing is a "discussion".
Too bad all the animosity and anger is not directed toward those who are covering up this crime rather than those who are trying to figure it out.

Can you "prove" everything you believe or suspect?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 04:44 AM
Response to Original message
14. Hard evidence - no problem
But first of all a preliminary point:
You appear to be under the mistaken impression that explosives would have
to be placed in the office space between the core and the perimeter, or
in the perimeter wall. This is not necessary at all. It would be quite
sufficient to place explosives on the core columns accessible from the
elevator shafts. Indeed, the "squibs" indicate this was actually where
they were placed. How many office workers actually see inside the elevator
shafts?

The collapse exhibited features commonly associated with controlled
demolition, for example:
(1) Shaking fixed-point camera before the collapse started:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
The relevant passage begins at 52:59.
This phenomenon is commonly associated with controlled demolition and can
be found on this film, for example:
http://www.dfw.com/multimedia/dfw/news/archive/0318implosion1/index.html

(2) Squibs
The best squibs can be found in Loose Change in the passage beginning at
34:42, which shows the South Tower from the east. You can see that they
emerge from floor 77, which was below the fire floors, and that they do so
before floor 78 has collapsed. If you compare them to the core columns'
positions, you will find that the match is uncanny.

(3) Unpancaked pieces of building
It is generally held by supporters of a natural collapse that the
buildings pancaked - the upper set of stories fell onto a floor, causing
the supporting columns to buckle. However, there are several chunks of
building which appear not to have pancaked. This is the biggest:

If the buildings were destroyed by pancaking, how come the bottom half of
the South Tower's core forgot to pancake?

Lastly:
(4) The most detailed and accurate scientific study of the collapse -
NIST's base case - showed that the impact and fire damage was not enough
to make the towers collapse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 05:30 AM
Response to Original message
16. You wouldn't have to ask those questions if
you'd been around here more often.
You'd know the Official Story is full of holes.
CT-ers don't necessarily know what did happen - only a full investigation can reveal what did happen. But we do know what didn't happen. Investigation start with suspicions - not with proving what did happen.
If you believe the Official Story, why don't you present evidence for it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. She doesn't believe the official story
I think she actually wrote a book (in German, so I haven't read it) saying that the official story was wrong. There was a thread about it about a year ago or so. She just thinks the Twin Towers weren't demolished by explosives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 06:20 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Then how does medienanalyse explain the free fall collapse
of the buildings and the collapse of WTC7 in particular?
The crumbling of the massive steel cores, the absence in the debris zone of concrete and steel from 110 floors? The sub 100 micrometer size of the dust particles, and the massive amount of dust both in the streets and airborne?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Why would someone need to explain something
that did not happen? Free-fall is a myth.

The crumbling of the "massive" steel cores happened because millions of pound of stuff fell on the them, causing the lateral support of vanish.

The absence in the debris zone of concrete and steel from 110 floors is new to me, did you just make that up or has it been around for a while?

The sub 100 micrometer size of the dust particles, and the massive amount of dust both in the streets and airborne is easily explained if you would bother to look at the materials in the towers and the massive amount of work energy created in the collapse.

How much do you think was sub 100 micron anyway?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. Of course
buildings just disintegrate all the time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. What does that have to do with my comments?
Are you a believer is the fairy tale about free fall?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. I don't believe anything
Edited on Sun Mar-19-06 09:45 AM by DoYouEverWonder
and I certainly don't believe in the fairy tale the government is selling.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #25
32. freefall
Even if there was no precise freefall it wouldn't matter. All 3 buildings fell basically with no resistance from the floors below or the steel column supports. There is no other plausible explanation besides a demolition. Look up Newton's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd law of motion.

Video Example:

http://www.911eyewitness.com/googlelowrez.html
(forward to 1:33:28 for example)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #32
46. All 3 buildings fell basically with no resistance from the floors below
is not true. If there was basically no resistance the building would have fallen near free fall speeds. They did not, so there was resistance.

BTW, I suggest you look up Newton's Laws of motion. You need a primer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. Lared, my favorite debunker - 110 floors in 10 seconds - I smell Bullshit
Where is your partner? Still lurking around?

When two 110 story buildings fall almost perfectly symmetrical and in mere seconds, I think it should be questioned. Under normal physics you should expect any of the following factors to stop or slow down the collapse.

1. Reinforced mechanical floors
2. Steel core
3. Steel reinforced concrete
4. Steel frame design similar to a screen mesh

The most logical step would be to understand how and why the buildings fell. That includes taking the following facts into consideration.

1. Explosions witnesses seen & heard in ALL 3 buildings
2. Heavy ejected steel
3. Building 7's collapse characteristics similar to WTC 1 & 2 despite no major visible damage.
4. Pyroclastic clouds
5. Squibs
6. Official attempts at covering up public information not limited to dispatch tapes and schematics
7. Etc....

When you disregard the smoke & mirrors and examine just the physics, the most plausible hypothesis points to demolition.

Video Evidence:

http://www.911eyewitness.com/googlelowrez.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. One problem; 10 seconds is a myth.
The true fall times are at least 50 to 100 percent longer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. Prove it
You can provide a video link to back up your assertion. No altered videos please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. Try this one
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4763320529356355623&q=Collapse+WTC

The collapse starts around 10 seconds into the video. At 20 seconds it is clearly not completely collapsed. One can make the argument the collapse was completely over somewhere past 20 seconds of fall time.

Look carefully at the bottom left of the video and you can see the heads of people moving in real time, not slow motion.

The video seem to be in real time, I pulled it off google in about 30 seconds. So unless you have a some legitimate reason to believe it is altered, you have a serious hole in you theory.

The interesting part will be to see if you have the intellectual back bone to admit it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. This one as well. One of your favorites
I think you are fond of this video. You reference it quite frequently. So I assume you believe it is legitimate.

http://www.911eyewitness.com/googlelowrez.html

Start right at about 37.55. This clearly show a collapse time near 20 seconds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. The NIST reported that the towers fell at free fall speeds
so take it up with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. I believe that was FEMA, not the NIST
Edited on Sun Mar-19-06 02:15 PM by LARED
that said ten seconds, and who are you going to believe your own eyes or the government?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. FEMA too? NIST: "came down essentially in free fall
Edited on Sun Mar-19-06 02:43 PM by dailykoff
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #60
64. wow you are amazing
You must have x-ray vision to see the building through the debris cloud. :sarcasm:

"The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually."

http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. Wow, what a lame response
Edited on Sun Mar-19-06 02:35 PM by LARED
you can't see past 10 second on the video.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I think you must be fun'in me because I (as well as anyone) can CLEARLY see it took about 20 seconds to collapse. Much longer if you include the spire collapsing.


BTW, thanks for clarifying what free-fall in a vacuum means, That one nearly had me scratching my noggin.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. Your attempts are lame
How can you establish the falling rate of an object when it is not in clear view? There are too many obstructions in the video section you pointed out.

Here is a clear example of WTC7's freefall. Notice how unobstructed and carefully calculated explanations are.

http://www.911eyewitness.com/googlelowrez.html
(forward to 1:12:47 for example)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. I suspected there is a deficit of intellectual honesty
It is not even questionable the collapse took around 20 second in your video. The video you claim is some of the best evidence for demolition. Now you want to change the subject.

:puke::puke::puke::puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. Methodology
Your methodology is weak and comparable to basing a conclusion on fuzzy pictures.

You know it.
I know it.
And the readers here know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. You are admonishing me on methodology????
basing a conclusion on fuzzy pictures

You get my vote for ironic post of the day. In fact maybe best of the month.

My method is to watch evidence YOU provided, backed up but other evidence. It is clear to all that watch this evidence the collapse took somewhere around 20 seconds rather than the 10 seconds you claim.

The fact you lack the honestly to admit when you are wrong has zero to do with methodology
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #70
76. methodology is important
Edited on Sun Mar-19-06 04:53 PM by simonm
It is clear to all that watch this evidence the collapse took somewhere around 20 seconds rather than the 10 seconds you claim.


The 10 seconds are based on government reports.

Like you, I agree that the reports are wrong about the 10 second collapse. I personally believe it took 12-14 seconds. I'm not the one backing up my claim with a building behind a cloud of smoke and no point of reference for determining its base. Without having some clue as to the base's location and velocity, you cannot verify your 20 second collapse theory.

A difference in a few seconds is not worth arguing over but you insist on being correct. You expect the reader to form a conclusion when the most crucial element (remaining building) is hidden from view.

Your methodology wouldn't be flawed if you chose a better video angle to back up your assertion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 07:27 AM
Response to Original message
21. Every single photograph is hard evidence.
Edited on Sun Mar-19-06 07:32 AM by dailykoff
Not one photograph of the event or its aftermath shows any evidence of a collapse mechanism consistent with the NIST account.

But every photograph shows evidence of the use of explosives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Assuming you are in the States
Edited on Sun Mar-19-06 07:34 AM by LARED
it's a tad early to be partaking in spirits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #21
31. Photographic evidence - Seeing is believing
We can argue forever about the chemicals found and their many uses. However, seeing is believing, there are plenty of photographs and videos that show outward explosive forces blasting everything apart.

Examining how the buildings fell is the most critical evidence. Beyond just the explosive forces you will notice how symmetrical the collapse was. It was too mathematical for a normal collapse.

When you disregard the smoke & mirrors and examine just the physics, the most plausible hypothesis points to demolition.

Free Video Examples:

http://www.911eyewitness.com/googlelowrez.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kai Donating Member (84 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
27. Dust Analysis
A very detailed dust analysis was posted in this forum in January:


Dust Analysis-Radioactivity Was Normal, Iron was noted

Edited on Fri Jan-06-06 11:50 AM by Christophera


I've read another dust analysis that showed radioactivity was normal.

The radiation was from computer screens and flourescent lights, fire alarms etc.

The dust was 100 micron and had large amounts of iron bonded to it. High thermal exposure was needed to effect that. Here is the report.

I'm looking for a second report I may have a copy of.

Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001

Paul J. Lioy,1,2 Clifford P. Weisel,1,2 James R. Millette,3 Steven Eisenreich,1,4 Daniel Vallero,5 John Offenberg,4 Brian Buckley,1 Barbara Turpin,1,4 Mianhua Zhong,6 Mitchell D. Cohen,6 Colette Prophete,6 Ill Yang,1 Robert Stiles,1 Glen Chee,6 Willie Johnson,1 Robert Porcja,1,4 Shahnaz Alimokhtari,1 Robert C. Hale,7 Charles Weschler,1 and Lung Chi Chen6

1Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute of New Jersey, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA; 2Department of Environmental and Community Medicine, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA; 3MVA, Norcross, Georgia; 4Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA; 5National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA; 6Nelson Institute of Environmental Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; 7Department of Environmental Sciences, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester, Virginia, USA

* Introduction
* Methods
* Results
* Discussion
* Conclusions
Abstract

The explosion and collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) was a catastrophic event that produced an aerosol plume impacting many workers, residents, and commuters during the first few days after 11 September 2001. Three bulk samples of the total settled dust and smoke were collected at weather-protected locations east of the WTC on 16 and 17 September 2001; these samples are representative of the generated material that settled immediately after the explosion and fire and the concurrent collapse of the two structures. We analyzed each sample, not differentiated by particle size, for inorganic and organic composition. In the inorganic analyses, we identified metals, radionuclides, ionic species, asbestos, and inorganic species. In the organic analyses, we identified polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, pesticides, phthalate esters, brominated diphenyl ethers, and other hydrocarbons. Each sample had a basic pH. Asbestos levels ranged from 0.8% to 3.0% of the mass, the PAHs were > 0.1% of the mass, and lead ranged from 101 to 625 µg/g. The content and distribution of material was indicative of a complex mixture of building debris and combustion products in the resulting plume. These three samples were composed primarily of construction materials, soot, paint (leaded and unleaded), and glass fibers (mineral wool and fiberglass). Levels of hydrocarbons indicated unburned or partially burned jet fuel, plastic, cellulose, and other materials that were ignited by the fire. In morphologic analyses we found that a majority of the mass was fibrous and composed of many types of fibers (e.g., mineral wool, fiberglass, asbestos, wood, paper, and cotton). The particles were separated into size classifications by gravimetric and aerodynamic methods. Material < 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter was 0.88-1.98% of the total mass. The largest mass concentrations were > 53 µm in diameter. The results obtained from these samples can be used to understand the contact and types of exposures to this unprecedented complex mixture experienced by the surviving residents, commuters, and rescue workers directly affected by the plume from 11 to 12 September and the evaluations of any acute or long-term health effects from resuspendable dust and smoke to the residents, commuters, and local workers, as well as from the materials released after 11 September until the fires were extinguished. Further, these results support the need to have the interior of residences, buildings, and their respective HVAC systems professionally cleaned to reduce long-term residential risks before rehabitation. Key words: aerosol, inorganic components, morphologic characterization, organic components, World Trade Center. Environ Health Perspect 110 :703-714 (2002).

http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2002/110p703-714lioy / abstract.html

Address correspondence to P.J. Lioy, Exposure Measurement and Assessment Division, Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, 170 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8020 USA. Telephone: (732) 445 0150. Fax: (732) 445 0116. E-mail: plioy@eohsi.rutgers.edu

We thank D. Bates and his analytic team in the U.S. EPA's Kansas City Regional Laboratory for their analysis of the dust for dioxins and furans. We also thank C. Schopfer of the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI) for completion of the radionuclide analyses; R. Harrington for analytic support, and M.J. La Guardia of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science for technical assistance. We extend our gratitude to D. Owuor for assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. Finally, we express our deepest sympathy and continuing concern for the families of the victims, and survivors of 11 September 2001.

This work was funded in part by supplemental funds from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to the NIEHS Centers at EOHSI (ES05022-12) and the NYU Institute of Medicine (ES00260). NYU is also funded in part by a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) PM Center Grant (R827351). P.J. Lioy was also supported in part by a U.S. EPA University Partnership (CR827033).

This work has been subjected to agency review and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendations for use.

Received 15 January 2002; accepted 8 April 2002.

Introduction
The 11 September 2001 attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York City (NYC) resulted in an intense fire and the subsequent complete collapse of the two main structures and adjacent buildings. It also led to significant damage to many surrounding buildings within and around the WTC complex. The 16-acre area has become known as Ground Zero. A consequence of the pulverization of buildings and the fires was the development of a large plume of dust and smoke that released both particles and gases into the atmosphere. The initial plume impacted all directions immediately adjacent to the WTC site, and the dust and smoke settled at many outdoor and indoor locations. From the first hours to 18 hr after the collapse, the winds transported the plume to the east (Figure 1) and then to the southeast across and beyond Brooklyn, New York.


Figure 1. The WTC dust and smoke plume moving east on 11 September 2001.

To begin assessing the exposure to dust and smoke among the residential and commuter population during the first few days, samples of particles that initially settled in downtown NYC were taken from three un-disturbed protected locations to the east of the WTC site. Two samples were taken on day 5 (16 September 2001) and the third sample was taken on day 6 (17 September 2001) after the terrorist attack. The purposes for collecting the samples were a) to determine the chemical and physical characteristics of the material that was present in the dust and smoke that settled from the initial plume, and b) to determine the absence or presence of contaminants that could affect acute or long-term human health by inhalation or ingestion. It was anticipated that the actual compounds and materials present in the plume would be similar to those found in building fires or implosion of collapsed buildings. The primary differences would be the simultaneous occurrence of each type of event, the intense fire (> 1,000°C), the extremely large mass of material (> 10 106 tons) reduced to dust and smoke, and the previously unseen degree of pulverization of the building materials. A summary of the potentially present types of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic materials was reported in EHP in November 2001 (1).

The dust and smoke would be inhaled by individuals either directly or after the settled aerosol was resuspended by turbulence. Deposition and retention of the dust and smoke on surfaces inside homes, as well as the residuals of dust and smoke remaining if residences and building ventilation systems were not properly cleaned before rehabitation, would be available for uptake by children and adults via nondietary ingestion. Indoor inhalation exposures would also be possible because of resuspension from the ventilation system. Any large-particle inhalation could also lead to ingestion exposure after particles are cleared from the upper airways of the lung by mucocilliary clearance processes.

A number of initial measurements made by various organizations focused on the general composition of the dust and smoke, with a primary concern being asbestos (1). The approach we used for analyzing the three dust and smoke samples included detailed measurement of the inorganic and organic components of the mass and a general characterization of the percent distribution by mass or volume of various materials present in each sample.

Samples of the total settled dust and smoke were collected at three different locations. The first sample was collected from protected external ledges around the entrance of a building on Cortlandt Street, which is one block east of the WTC building complex. The initial direction of the plume was from west to east (Figure 1); thus, the other two samples were collected at locations to the east of Cortlandt Street. These two samples were collected from 10-15 cm-thick deposits that were on the top of two automobiles about 0.7 km from the WTC site. The automobiles were in locations protected from rain that occurred on Friday, 15 September 2001. One automobile was located on Cherry Street, and the other was on Market Street, one and two city blocks, respectively, west of the East River between the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges. These cars appeared to have been in their respective locations since 11 September, but it is possible that each could have been moved from an adjacent thoroughfare on the east side of NYC (FDR Drive).

One of the reasons for collecting samples from these locations was to determine whether chemical composition and physical morphology of the particles changed with distance from the WTC site. The samples were collected using the protocols established for surface soil collection in our studies of the dispersal of chromium-laden hazardous waste in Jersey City, New Jersey (2), and the National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (3). After collection, all samples were stored in a 4°C room prior to sending the subfractions to individual laboratories for analysis. We maintained chain of custody throughout sample transferal and analyses.

Methods

Approach

The analyses conducted on each sample were based on the nature of the sources of the particles that were aerosolized on 11 September 2001. The force of the collapse pulverized the two main WTC structures and several adjacent low-rise buildings (e.g., WTC3, WTC7); therefore, our analytic plan included qualitative and quantitative analyses to detect construction and furnishing debris, and combustible materials and products of incomplete combustion associated with the fires in each building. We accomplished the tasks by completing analyses to identify inorganic and organic constituents.

We designed the first sets of analyses to provide a general characterization of the content of the samples using a combination of microscopic techniques. This provided an opportunity to classify the general morphology and to focus the chemical analyses subsequently performed on each sample based on the types of materials detected by the microscopic analyses. The second type of analyses included the inorganic analyses (including trace and toxic elements, ionic species, and functional groups) and the organic analyses . All of these analyses were performed exclusively on the total of bulk samples.

The third set of analyses included the particle size fractionation experiments on each sample. We used two different approaches: a) a gravimetric sieving analysis that separated the mass of lint and nonfibrous material into fractions > 300 µm, 75-300 µm, and < 75 µm in diameter; and b) an aerodynamic separation for the particle size fractions of < 2.5 µm, 2.5-10 µm, and 10-53 µm in diameter, with a gravimetric sieving that separated the particles > 53 µm in diameter before the aerodynamic sizing of the samples. The separations were based on the design or availability of specific size separation techniques in the laboratories.

We selected all of the analyses described above for the three bulk samples based on the nature of the events and the materials that could be associated with the buildings and the burning jet fuel. The collapse resulted in a pulverization of the buildings. Thus, it was important to complete morphologic analyses to obtain a general idea about the composition and the structure of the particles that were produced from the building materials. We conducted the organic analyses to determine the chemical nature of the products of incomplete combustion produced by the fires and to identify any other organic materials. The inorganic analyses were completed to obtain quantitative information on the levels of various heavy metals and other inorganic materials present in the pulverized building materials and in the fire. Finally, we conducted the particle size analyses to provide a general description of the types and levels of material available that could be inhaled and deposited in various locations within the lung. These size-separated samples were stored for analyses of the same compounds in the individual size fractions. These results are the subject of future manuscripts.

Analytic Methods

Because each of the total mass dust and smoke samples was determined to contain a complex mixture of materials, the analytic plan required the inclusion of a number of different techniques for examining chemical and physical characteristics. Our approach included microscopic analysis to identify major components and the morphology of particles in each sample. Using stereomicroscopy, we estimated relative percentages of larger particles and identified large dust components. We used polarized light microscopy with microchemical testing to identify most particles including minerals, building products, and hair and fibers > 1 µm in diameter. We used scanning electron microscopy with X-ray elemental analysis to identify metal fragments, building product pieces, and other particles < 1 µm. Transmission electron microscopy, with electron diffraction and X-ray elemental analysis was used to identify the smallest fraction of particles including single asbestos fibrils and carbon soot.

We extracted the portions of each total mass sample (not differentiated by particles size) for determination of trace and toxic elements by inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy; ion chromatography was used to determine the ionic and cationic components of the mass. Other portions of each total mass sample were then extracted and analyzed for organic constituents. We included materials that are typically measured in air or dust samples by gas chromatographic and mass spectrometric techniques; we then scanned for unknown extracts using other mass spectroscopic analyses. Other analyses completed on these total mass samples included the measurement of pH, corrosion, aerodynamic particle size for fine and coarse particle fractions, percentage of mass by particle sieving, general radiation levels, and asbestos. Details on each analysis conducted on the three dust and smoke samples are provided below.

Morphologic and gravimetric analyses. The dust samples were characterized by both gravimetric measurement of sieved size fractions and by polarized light microscopy analyses. The samples were sieved using standard 4-inch diameter brass sieves (U.S. Standard Sieve Mesh 50 and 200) as reported previously (4). The gravimetric determinations were made in triplicate with a SETRA EZ2-500 electronic 3-place balance (Setra Systems, Inc., Boxborough, MA). All sample-handling activities were performed inside a hood with a HEPA exhaust filter. Samples were separated into fibrous (lint) and nonfibrous fractions using tweezers under the stereomicroscope. Indoor dust has been shown to be composed of both fibrous and nonfibrous fractions (5). The fibrous and nonfibrous parts are expected to respond differently to dust disruptions, which include cleaning procedures.

We determined the weight of the lint (plus attached fine nonfibrous particulate). The remaining particulate was then dry sieved at the following size fractions: > 300 µm (collected on Mesh 50), 75-300 µm (collected on Mesh 200), < 75 µm (through Mesh 200). The weight of each fraction was determined and the relative weight percentages were then calculated. The lint fraction is found in the large (> 300 µm) fraction. The fractions were combined and examined by stereomicroscopy using a Zeiss Stemi 2000 stereomicroscope (Carl Zeiss, Inc., Thornwood, NY) with a magnification range of 6.5 to 47. The physical characteristics of the samples were then analyzed using an Olympus BH-2 polarized light microscope (Olympus America, Inc., Melville, NY) with a magnification range of 40 to 1,000. A visual estimate was made of the relative percentage by volume of loosely aggregated separable fibrous lint (hair + natural fibers + manmade fibers).

Each sample was characterized morphologically for major constituents using a form developed by MVA (4,6). Identified constituents were then rated as to whether it was "common" (consistently found throughout the sample) or "present" (detected but infrequently) (7-11). This designation does not necessarily indicate the relative abundance of a constituent by weight or volume within a sample; it is an indictor of numerical abundance of a constituent. The < 75 µm size fraction portion was analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), which was performed using a JEOL 6400 (JEOL Inc., Peabody, MA) equipped with a Noran Voyager energy dispersive X-ray analysis unit (Noran Instruments, Inc., Middleton, WI) and both the secondary and backscattered modes. For SEM analysis, portions of the particles from the sample were transferred to conductive carbon tape and coated with a thin layer of carbon to provide a conductive surface in the electron microscope. Using the backscattered electron mode, the sample was examined for particles that contained heavy elements. This procedure is useful in locating particles containing toxic metals such as lead and cadmium. Using the secondary electron mode, the sample was examined for particles that were consistent with asbestos fibers. We performed X-ray elemental analysis (energy dispersive spectrometry) on each particle located for further study by either the backscattered electron or secondary electron scans. We prepared the < 75 µm size fraction of the samples following the ASTM D6602 procedure (6) and analyzed them with analytic electron microscopy using a JEOL 1200, 100 kV scanning transmission electron microscope equipped with a Noran energy dispersive spectrometry X-ray analysis system. Each sample was subjected to morphologic and gravimetric analyses.

Aerodynamic particle separation. The samples were first mechanically separated using a sieve with a mesh size of 53 µm. The fraction of particles < 53 µm was further separated aerodynamically into three size fractions: 10-53 µm, 2.5-10 µm, and < 2.5 µm. Particles were resuspended by a jet of filtered air passing through an inlet (Wedding Inlet, 10 µm cut size; Anderson Instrument Co., Fultonville, NY) before entering a cyclone with a cut size of 2.5 µm (BGI, Inc., Waltham, MA). Particles between 10 and 2.5 µm were collected by the cyclone, whereas particles < 2.5 µm, which penetrated through the cyclone, were collected on Teflon filters.

Corrosion. We evaluated the corrosive properties of the dust samples using copper mirrors. For each dust sample, a small amount was sprinkled onto a copper mirror and a second copper mirror was set aside as a control; hence, there were a total of three exposed mirrors and three controls. These six mirrors were placed in a sealed container together with a beaker of water to maintain the relative humidity near 100%. After a 14-day exposure, the samples were examined for pinholes and discoloration.

Radionuclides. We analyzed the gamma spectrum of the samples using an EG&G/Ortec high-purity Ge detector (50% relative efficiency) gamma counter (EG&G/Ortec Instruments, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN). We analyzed approximately 50 peaks based on statistical significance (counting/lack of interferences). These included thorium, uranium, actinium series, and primordial radionuclides. Liquid scintillation analyses were conducted for emissions on the total dust and smoke samples using a Packard Tri-Carb Model 2770 TR/SL (Packard Instrument, Meriden, CT). The MDA for alpha radioactivity was 0.30 DPM (0.14 pCi) based on a NIST-traceable 226Ra standard (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD). When placed in the liquid scintillation fluid, the WTC samples are somewhat darker than the backgrounds and calibration standard, which may cause slight underreporting of the beta activity due to quenching and standard-to-sample efficiency bias.

Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) analysis for trace and toxic elements. All samples were analyzed in duplicate for trace or toxic elements. Approximately 0.1 g of sample was accurately weighed and placed in a CEM HP500 microwave vessel (CEM Corporation, Matthews, NC). Fisher optima concentrated nitric acid (10 mL) was then added to the vessels. The six sample vessels plus those of two method blanks were sealed and placed in the CEM MARS microwave unit at 1,200 watts for 5 min. The samples were allowed to cool for approximately 15 min inside the MARS unit and were then removed and placed in the cold room for 1 hr at 4°C. After cooling, the samples were then diluted to 50 mL. A 2-mL aliquot was then diluted to 8 mL for a final acid concentration of 5%.

We scanned the samples for metals on a Fissons PQ3 ICP/MS (Fissons Instruments, Inc., Merrimac, MA) over a mass range of 9-238 at 1,350 watts, with a dwell time of 1,000 µsec with 40 sweeps for a total acquisition time of 70 sec. We used high purity multielement standard and NIST A&B calibrant for quality control. Acceptable quality assurance checks were deemed to be 100 ± 20% of the certified values.

Ion chromatography for ionic species and pH analyses. We weighed the samples (Fisher Scientific XT Balance; Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA) and placed them in test tubes; aliquots of distilled, deionized water were added to make a concentration of approximately 30 mg/mL. The tubes were inverted several times and were then sonicated. The samples were left at room temperature for several days before centrifugation. The extract from each filter sample was removed to a new test tube before centrifugation. All samples were centrifuged and the supernatant was removed to new tubes and stored in the refrigerator.

A 1-mL aliquot of extract was used for pH measurement. This was performed using an Orion Research Digital pH Meter 611 (Dionex Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA). The ion analysis was performed using a Dionex DX500 system. The anion analyses column-IonPac AS14 (Dionex) was used in Suppressor-ASRS Ultra-AutoSuppressor Recycle Mode. The eluent was 3.5 mM Na2CO3/1.0mM NaHCO3. We used cation analyses column IonPac CS12A in the Suppressor-CSRS II Ultra-AutoSuppressor Recycle Mode. The eluent was 20 mM methanesulfonic acid.

We constructed calibration curves using seven standards prepared by diluting a NIST-traceable standard (Fisher) using Milli-Q water. Each standard was subsequently run as a sample to verify the calibration curve. Samples were run once the calibration curve was verified. After all samples were analyzed, these seven standards were analyzed again, followed by two additional NIST traceable stock standards (Dionex). Samples that were originally off scale were diluted with Milli-Q water and tested again.

Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometry. Each sample was analyzed for functional groups by FTIR after a portion of the sample was converted to a standard infrared pellet. The pellet was made by combining a small quantity of sample dust material (~ 30 mg) and approximately 200 mg of spectrograde potassium bromide powder (ICL Laboratories, Garfield, NJ). This mixture was preliminarily ground together using an agate motor and pestle, then transferred to a metal vial and placed in a mixing mill (SPEX Model 5300; SPEX Industries, Edison, NJ) and agitated for 30 sec at approximately 50 cycles/sec. The resultant homogeneous mixture was then transferred to a die (13 mm Macro-Micro KBr pellet die; ICL Laboratories) connected to a vacuum pump, which was placed in a lab press. Approximately 8,500 psi was applied to the mixture for 30 secs. The resulting infrared pellet consisted of a mid-infrared transparent solid matrix of potassium bromide containing a uniform distribution of the dust sample to be analyzed.

We obtained all infrared spectra using an FTIR Spectrometer (Mattson Instruments, Madison, WI) (12). The spectrometer was configured to obtain standard transmission FTIR spectra using a deuterated triglycine sulfate detector. Each spectrum collected was an average of 200 scans at 4/cm resolution. The resulting profile was illustrated as a plot of percent transmittance of infrared radiation as a function of wave number from 4,000 to 450/cm. The transmission spectra of the three samples were then examined for functional group content.

Volatile organic compounds. We used thermal desorption (Perkin-Elmer ATD400; Perkin-Elmer, Norwalk, CT) with a gas chromatograph (GC)/MS detector (Hewlett Packard 5890/5971; Hewlett Packard, Wilmington, DE) to analyze samples of dust from the destruction of the World Trade Center complex for volatile organic compounds. Approximately 200 mg of each of the three samples were heated at 180°C for 1 min in a stainless steel tube with the emitted compounds transferred in a helium stream to a Tenax absorbent trap (Supelco, Bellefonte, PA) held at -28°C. The absorbent trap was heated to 250°C within a few seconds, with the compounds transferred to a capillary GC/MS. Full scan mass spectra were collected above 30 atomic mass units (amu) to identify the volatile compounds.

The chromatographic peaks were identified based on comparisons to standards run under the same conditions as the samples, evaluation of the mass spectral pattern, and library matches within the Wiley Mass Spectra Library (The Wiley/NBS Registry of Mass Spectral Data). Due to the unresolved background present in the chromatograph after a retention time of 20 min, we performed a background subtraction of an area near each peak of interest before the library search.

Semivolatile organic chemical analysis. Many of the compounds or compound classes measured for semivolatile organics were analyzed by well-established techniques for PAHs, PCBs, dioxins, and furans. However, because the fire at the WTC was very complex and included the burning of fuel, plastics, furniture, and other materials, we conducted additional analyses to detect and quantify unknown organics in the total mass samples. These are described below.

Standard PAH, chlordane, and PCB analyses. Each sample was analyzed by GC/MS on a Hewlett Packard 6890/5973 for 40 individual PAHs and six chlordane species (oxy-chlordane, trans-chlordane, cis-chlordane, trans-nonachlor, cis-nonachlor, and MC5), and by GC/electron capture detection with a Hewlett Packard 6890 equipped with a 63Ni electron capture detector for quantification of 68 PCB congeners, hexachlorobenzene, DDTs (4,4´-DDE, 2,4´-DDT, and 4,4´-DDT), and mirex (13,14). By weighing triplicate aliquots of approximately 0.7 g of each dust sample, ultrasonically extracting each in 30 mL dichloromethane, and reducing the volume before analysis, we identified and quantified all compounds against known concentrations of authentic standards and NIST Standard Reference Material 1649a (Urban Dust, Organics) (15), which was processed in parallel with each sample for comparison and verification of the results.

Unknown semivolatile hydrocarbon identification. The analysis for semivolatile organic compounds included microwave-assisted solvent extraction (MASE) followed by GC/ion trap mass spectrometer (ITMS) (16,17). MASE was carried out using an MDS-2000 microwave extraction system (CEM) equipped with an inboard pressure control system. The MDS-2000 is able to extract 12 samples simultaneously in Teflon PFA-lined extraction vessels under approximately the same conditions of temperature and pressure. A 2.5-g portion of each sample was accurately weighed and quantitatively transferred into Teflon PFA-lined extraction vessels of the MDS-2000. We added extraction solvents (7.5 mL methylene chloride-acetone; 1:1 v/v) to each vessel and fitted new rupture membranes into each cap, which screwed onto the vessel. We then placed the vessels symmetrically on the microwave turntable. After the extraction was completed, the vessels were allowed to cool before the caps were opened. After cooling, we transferred 1.5 mL extract from the supernatant of the vessels into GC vials without a preconcentration step before GC/ITMS analysis.

We performed GC/MS on a Varian 3400 CX GC coupled to a Saturn 2000 GC/MS ITMS (Varian Instruments, Palo Alto, CA). A septum programmable split/splitless injector was used in the splitless mode. The GC was equipped with a 30-m 5% phenyl/95% dimethylsilicone fused silica DB-XLB capillary column with 0.32 mm i.d. and 0.25 µm film thickness (J&W Scientific, Folsom, CA).

The ITMS was operated in electron ionization-positive mode and optimized with perfluorotributylamine (FC-34) using automatic gain control. The electron multiplier, emission current, and modulation amplitude were set at 1,800 V, 10 µA, and 7.5 V, respectively. The transfer line and the ion trap manifold were set to 270°C and 225°C, respectively. The mass range scanned was from 45 to 450 m/z at 0.3-0.6 sec/scan. We used Saturn GC/MS workstation version 5.3 software for data acquisition.

We identified the analytes by comparing the mass spectrum (after background subtraction) to the vendor's library and NIST 98 library spectrum. As with the identification of other unknowns, we defined a positive identification as one with a correlation to the library spectrum of > 85% fit. We added EPA 525 internal standards (Supelco) to the sample run as quality control checks for rough quantitation and retention time quality control. A secondary identification was performed using retention time confirmation with quality control standards, when available. We analyzed a 1-µL aliquot of standard with the GC/ITMS system under the same conditions used for samples and quality control samples. Approximately 300 semivolatile organic compound standards including EPA 525, 625, and 8270 standards (Supelco) were injected to build the GC retention time library. We defined a retention time match as an analyte compound eluting within ± 5 sec of the standard sample retention time. All reported compounds met these criteria.

Polychlorinated dioxins (PCDDs) and furans (PCDFs). We used U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Methods 1613 and RCRA SW846 Method 8290 for dioxin analyses (18,19). In these methods, a clean extraction thimble was charged with 5.0 g of 100/200-mesh silica topped with 100 g of quartz sand. The silica layer was left undisturbed throughout the extraction process. The thimble was placed in a clean extractor with 30-40 mL of toluene in the receiver and 200-250 mL of toluene in the flask. The wet sample, filter, and/or disk were loaded and any nonaqueous liquid removed. The remaining sample was placed in the thimble and manually mixed into the sand layer with a clean metal spatula, carefully breaking up any large lumps of sample.

The dust and smoke extracts, which were blown to dryness in conical vials and refrigerated, were analyzed via GC/high-resolution mass spectrometry (GC/HRMS) after the addition of an internal standard and nonane. We programmed the column temperature to separate the 2,3,7,8-TCDD congener from other TCDD analytes. The tetra congeners had to be eluted from the column after 20 min for this to occur. The seventeen congeners of interest were then detected with the HRMS. We identified compounds eluting from the GC column by the retention time reference obtained from the corresponding labeled isotope and the ion ratio of the measured ions during selective ion response. We calculated the concentration of each congener by using the relative response factors of each native congener to its respective 13C12-labeled congener.

Standards used in the analyses were concentration of stock and spiking solutions containing PCDDs/PCDFs and labeled compounds. We included a cleanup standard (Cl4, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 0.8 ng/mL) and internal standards (Cl2, 1,2,3,4-TCDD, 200 ng/mL; and Cl2, 1,2,3,7,8,9-hexaCDD, 200 ng/mL).

Brominated diphenyl ethers. The analytic methodology for detecting brominated diphenyls and diphenyl ethers have been described previously (20). Briefly, we subjected total dust samples to enhanced solvent extraction using methylene chloride. Extracts were purified by size exclusion and silica gel liquid chromatography. Compound quantification was performed by GC with halogen-selective electrolytic conductivity detection with multipoint calibration. Decachlorodiphenyl ether was used as an internal standard. 2,2´,4,4´,5,6´,6´-Octachlorobiphenyl was added before extraction as a surrogate standard, and results were corrected for its recovery (mean ± SD, 68.1 ± 2.02). We confirmed compound identities by GC/MS in the full scan electron ionization mode. None of the target compounds were detected in the blank.

Results
The general characteristics of each total settled dust and smoke sample are shown in Table 1; these characteristics indicate that the composition of major components in each sample were similar, with slight differences in total composition for the Market Street sample. Generally, the samples were very light and fluffy, and were white to pinkish-gray. The general physical appearance of the Market Street sample is shown in Figure 2 as an example. The mass of each sample was dominated by nonfibrous material and construction debris, and the Cortlandt and Cherry Street samples contained approximately 0.8% asbestos. In contrast, of the mass collected, the Market Street sample contained 3.0% asbestos. We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.




Figure 2. The general appearance of the bulk dust collected at the Market Street location east of the WTC site. Dust samples from the other two sites were similar in appearance. Magnification = 4.

The pH of an aqueous suspension of each sample was > 7; the Cortlandt Street sample had a pH of 11.5. Both the Cherry and Market Street samples had a pH of ~9 (Table 1). Significant amounts (~10% of the mass) of cellulose were found in all three samples. This observation is consistent with the release of large amounts of disintegrated paper and other products that were originally part of the indoor work environments. We detected no differences between the exposed copper mirrors and the controls, indicating that these dust samples were not corrosive toward base metals. This finding is consistent with the pH measurements.

Morphologic analyses. Detailed morphologic analyses of each sample supported the general characterizations presented in Table 1.

Cortlandt Street sample. The Cortlandt Street sample was mainly composed of construction debris , quartz grains, low-temperature combustion material (including charred woody fragments), and glass shards. Chrysotile asbestos fibers were estimated to comprise < 1% of the sample by volume, and much of the chrysotile adhered to carbonate binder. Some skin cells and dyed cotton fibers were present (5,21-23). The findings of skin cells was consistent with the types of particles usually found in dust in the indoor environment.


Figure 3. Appearance of lead from the Cortlandt Street sample.

Approximately 35% of the volume of the sample was in the form of loosely consolidated clumps of fibrous lint, of which the greatest portion was glass fibers. An example of the typical form of the glass fibers is shown in Figure 4. In many cases the width was 1 µm (to > 10 µm), and the length ranged from 5 to 100 µm. The fiber shown in Figure 4 is not a "clean" glass fiber; other materials are agglomerated along the rod. This is typical of features noted for many different types of particles in each sample. The SEM analysis of the fraction < 75 µm in diameter revealed many glass fibers and cement particles, some in a fibrous form containing calcium, silicon, and sulfur, and some particles were composed of calcium carbonate (Figure 5).


Figure 4. Glass fiber detected in the Market Street sample.


Figure 5. Coarse calcium carbonate particle detected in the Cortlandt Street sample.

Chrysotile asbestos fibers, identified by transmission electron microscopy (TEM), were found in the < 75-µm fraction. None of the analyzed particles contained lead, chromium, cadmium, or mercury, although chromium and cadmium were quantified in this sample by ICP/MS analyses.

Cherry Avenue sample. The Cherry Avenue sample is mainly composed of construction debris (including cement, vermiculite, plaster, synthetic foam, glass fragments, mineral wool fibers, paint particles, glass fibers, metals, calcite grains, and paper fragments), quartz grains, low-temperature combustion material (including charred woody fragments), and metal flakes. We estimated that chrysotile asbestos fibers comprised < 1% of the sample by volume. Much of the chrysotile asbestos had carbonate binder adhered to it. We observed some hair fibers and tarry fragments in the sample. Approximately 10% of the volume of the sample was in the form of loosely consolidated clumps of fibrous lint, of which the greatest portion was glass fibers. The SEM analysis of the fraction < 75 µm in diameter revealed many glass fibers and cement particles, some in a fibrous form, containing calcium, silicon, and sulfur.

We used SEM and TEM to examine chrysotile asbestos fibers, lead paint fragments, iron-chromium particles, and soot particles found in the < 75-µm fraction. The soot particles were in the submicron size range (Figure 6). No particles containing cadmium (detected by ICP/MS) or mercury were found at less than minimum detection limits in the 1,000 particles analyzed from this sample.


Figure 6. A soot particle containing coagulated ultra-fine particles detected in the Cherry Street sample.

Market Street sample. The Market Street sample was also composed of construction debris (including vermiculite, plaster, synthetic foam, glass fragments, paint particles, mineral wool fibers, glass fibers, calcite grains, and paper fragments), quartz grains, low-temperature combustion material (including charred woody fragments), and metal flakes. Chrysotile asbestos fibers made up < 1% of the sample by volume, and much of the chrysotile adhered to carbonate binder. This result is different from the bulk mass results, which indicated 3.0% asbestos; this indicates that the sample was not homogeneous. Some dyed cotton fibers, tarry fragments, pollen grains, and metal flakes were also present. Approximately 10% of the volume of the sample was in the form of loosely consolidated clumps of fibrous lint, of which the greatest portion was glass fibers. The SEM analysis of the fraction < 75 µm in diameter revealed many glass fibers and cement particles, some in a fibrous form containing calcium, silicon, and sulfur.

Chrysotile asbestos fibers, identified by TEM, were found in the fine fraction. We found no particles containing lead, chromium, cadmium, or mercury in the single particles analyzed from the Market Street sample, although all but mercury were detected by the ICP/MS analyses.

The morphologic differences between each of the collected samples were minor and could be attributed to the fact that we analyzed only 1,000 particles per sample. This limitation in particle number would preclude consistent detection of all materials that comprise < 0.1% of each sample.

A minor difference between the Cortlandt Street and the Market and Cherry Street samples was that the Cortlandt Street sample had 0.88% fine particles (particles < 2.5 µm in diameter), while the other two samples had > 1.1% fine particle mass. Using microscopic analysis to generally describe the distribution of materials among the mass fractions, we found that large particles were primarily made up of building materials including gypsum, glass fiber, mineral wool fibers, wood fibers, and paper fragments. Chrysotile adhered to building material, chrysotile bundles, and plaster were also components of large particles. This is consistent with the fact that the lint with fibrous particle bundles was in the > 300-µm particle size range.


The smaller particles (< 75 µm in diameter) included asbestos, soot, lead, and other trace elements. This is consistent with the dual nature of the event--the collapse of two buildings overlaying intensely burning structures--which would result primarily in individual and population exposures to large particles and in much lower exposures to fine particles. However, the large amounts of material in the air during the first 2 days could lead to high exposures within unprotected individuals.

Inorganic and metals. The concentrations of elements found in the samples are shown in Table 2, which provides values for an array of elements detectable by ICP/MS. The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium. The very high levels of titanium (> 0.1%) were due to their presence in paint, especially white paint. The lead levels are elevated due to the use of lead-based paint on metallic surfaces during construction of the building. The detected lead dust concentrations were lower than would be found outdoors in older cities affected by tailpipe emissions from leaded gasoline (24). The lead levels, however, could not be discounted in concerns about exposure. Because of the large mass of material deposited within rehabitable buildings throughout lower Manhattan, surface loading could enhance potential nondietary exposures (25). In contrast, mercury was not at quantifiable levels, and the concentrations of arsenic and cadmium were relatively low, but in the micrograms/gram (parts per million) concentration range.

In addition to the elements quantified by ICP/MS analyses, the SEM dispersive X-ray analyses showed large signals for iron and calcium, which are major components of construction materials. Similar observations were found for silicon, which is consistent with the glass fragments and fiberglass found in each sample. FTIR functional group analysis detected a signal that is indicative of calcium sulfate dihydrate, a component of gypsum board, and calcium carbonate, which is extensively used as filler for many materials. Other SEM analyses found signals of trace elements, which are indicative of fiberglass and other nonorganic fibers, especially asbestos fiber.

We found detectable levels of typical anionic and cationic species that are usually measured in aerosol samples (ion chromatography results shown in Table 1). We found chloride and sulfate in all samples. The Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Street samples had sulfate levels of 41,400, 35,200, and 42,100 ng/g, respectively, which probably were formed in the fires. We also detected calcium in the nanograms per gram concentration range; this is probably a result of the pulverization of building materials, with Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Streets having values of 18,200, 14,000, and 17,000 ng/g, respectively. The high calcium levels are consistent with the FTIR and morphologic analyses. A major difference between these samples was that Cortlandt Street had approximately three times the levels of both fluoride and chloride as the other streets.

PAHs. In the morphologic analyses, we found that the particles < 75 µm in diameter were gray. Thus, we focused the analyses on products of incomplete combustion as well as other organic species. The results for PAHs are shown in Tables 3 and 4. For the three dust and smoke samples, which were undifferentiated by particle size, the total concentrations of 40 typical PAHs with higher molecular weights were in excess of 200-300 µg/g. The distribution of the 40 PAH compounds are shown in Figure 7, with levels of individual PAHs ranging from hundreds of nanograms per gram to > 40 µg/g. Benzopyrene ranged from 12 to 24 µg/g, with the highest values detected at Cortlandt Street. The values for phenanthrene ranged from 22 to 44 µg/g, with the highest value also detected at the Cortlandt Street.

Figure 7. PAH concentrations measured in the Cortlandt, Market, and Cherry Street samples . Mephens + Meanthrs, methylphenanthrenes + methlyanthracenes.

We found other PAHs in each sample (Table 4); for example, 7H-benzofluorene and 11H-benzofluorene were found in the Market Street sample, with values of 39 ppm and 33 µg/g, respectively. Additional PAHs were detected in the Cortlandt and Cherry Street samples, although these samples had a much less diverse mix of additional PAHs and neither had detectable levels of the two compounds mentioned above. For example, the Cortlandt Street sample had two methylated phenanthrene compounds at concentrations < 10 µg/g. If we add the quantifiable PAHs in each sample, the total PAHs in the settled dust and smoke was > 0.1% of the mass.

The highest concentrations of the 40 specific PAHs reported in Table 4 and Figure 7 were found in the Cortlandt Street sample. This is logical because it was the site closest to the fire after the collapse; however, a larger variety of other PAHs at concentrations > 10 µg/g were found in the Market samples. The intense and uncontrolled fire(s) would be expected to burn at different temperatures, and the homogeneity of the material that burned would lead to a variety of unburned or partially burned hydrocarbons. These were derived from burning plastics, metals, woods, synthetic products, and other materials; using morphologic analyses, we found charred wood particles in all three samples.

Other organic compounds. A significant product of incomplete combustion found in all three samples was the class of contaminants called phthalate esters; as shown in Table 4, the levels were > 10 µg/g for specific compounds. The total level of detectable phthalate esters in the Market Street sample was > 100 µg/g. Hydrocarbons identified and shown in Figure 8 indicated the presence of a fuel, which in this case was associated with the approximately 91,000 L of unburned or burning jet fuel that cascaded down each building after the explosions and during the collapse of each tower. Results of all three samples showed an unresolved envelope of high boiling hydrocarbons of 10 carbons or greater and had individual compound peaks superimposed on the envelope (Figure 8). The mass spectrum of the unresolved envelope was consistent with saturated hydrocarbon chains (masses separated by 14 amu starting at 43 amu) and naphthalene ring structure (128 amu). All samples also showed major peaks of the lightest PAHs (naphthalene, substituted naphthalene, acenaphthalene, and fluorene), which were consistent with the presence of products of combustion and the quantitative results reported in Tables 3 and 4. The alkane peaks were much more pronounced and distinct in the sample collected farthest to the east of Ground Zero (0.7 km; Market Street) (Figure 8). The alkanes detected were the same as those found in uncombusted fuel. Jet fuel is composed of a mixture of saturated hydrocarbons (representing > 50% of the total fuel) and aromatic hydrocarbons (26). Paraffins and cycloparaffins in the C9-C16 range dominate the composition. Gas chromatograms of the vapor phase of jet fuel show both the unresolved envelope and individual hydrocarbon peaks of the straight chain pariffins observed in the thermal desorption profile from the collected dust sample (27). The additional peaks identified within the dust samples represent PAHs that resulted from the incomplete combustion of the building material, the jet fuel from the planes after the explosion and fire, and the collapse of both of the World Trade Center towers. The results suggest that particles transported away from the site during the initial conflagration contained a mixture of combustion products and jet fuel. Thus, residents downwind during the initial hours would have been exposed to particles from construction debris, products of incomplete combustion, and some coated with jet fuel. Other materials could have shown similar patterns, but the large amount of jet fuel released during the crashes would have overwhelmed contributions from other materials such as fuel oil and other petroleum-based products.



Figure 8. GC/MS analysis of the Market Street sample and the compounds detected that are components of jet fuel.

The levels of PCBs and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-diozins (PCDDs) and dibenzofurans (PCDFs) were in the nanograms per gram and picograms per gram range as shown in Tables 3 and 5, respectively. Thus, the situation yielded detectable, but not excessive, levels of these categories of environmental contaminants. The toxic equivalent values for PCDDs and PCDFs in dust (approximately 100 ng/kg) in this study were consistent with those of dust sampled directly from the pile (maximum total equivalents of about 300 ng/kg) (28). Neither our study nor the U.S. EPA found PCDD levels in dust above background (29). The levels of polybrominated biphenyls and brominated diphenyl ethers (BDEs) were also determined (Table 6) and were similar to levels found in sewage sludge (30). The penta-mixture (BDE-47, BDE-99, and BDE-100) is used in flame retardants for polyurethane foam, which is common as padding in office furniture. The highest concentration was for BDE-209, which is present in thermoplastics (e.g., computers). However, the large volume of material present would lead to significant ambient levels of polybrominated biphenyls, BDEs, and other materials during the first day after the attack on the WTC. We found no concentrations above background for the pesticide chlordane.






Discussion
The composition of each sample collected from the three locations east of the WTC site were complex because of the dual nature of the released aerosol and the magnitude of the event. The aerosol that was released and deposited on surfaces downwind of the complex included pulverized building debris and products of incomplete combustion produced by the explosion that ignited the thousands of liters of jet fuel. The mass of material deposited was extremely high and, in many indoor locations, the deposited particle loadings were 1-3 cm thick (Figure 9). In outdoor situations, the dust and smoke loadings sometimes reached a thickness of > 10 cm. Thus, on the first and second days after the attack on the WTC, > 70% of the mass was associated with construction materials, including pulverized cement, wallboard, and office furnishings, which included a large percentage by weight of glass fiber. A small percentage of the carcinogen asbestos was found in these samples (~0.8% by volume), although some individual samples yielded higher levels. The products of incomplete combustion were produced by the intense fire that consumed many materials in the buildings (e.g., furnishings, equipment, debris, wiring, metal, wood, etc.). PAHs, products of incomplete combustion, were present in the samples at levels of 5 µg/g to hundreds of micrograms per gram. Concentrations of the individual compounds (e.g., benzopyrene) were > 20 µg/g, and the total mass of PAHs present were in excess of 0.1% of the mass. When placed in the context of the vast amounts of other materials present in the air during the first day after the collapse and fires, these levels were high and could lead to significant short-term inhalation exposure. In fact, based on the PAH results obtained from air samples after 25 September, the types of PAHs released into the atmosphere at that time were similar to the PAHs detected in the settled dust and smoke samples collected during the first week after the collapse and fires (29). The levels of PCDDs and PCDFs were similar to those found in other studies (29), but the levels of 2,2´,4,4´,5,5´-hexabromobiphenyl were higher than those found in sludge, which is likely due to its use during the construction of the WTC in the 1970s (30). The concentrations of lead ranged from 100 to > 600 ppm; these concentrations are not very high compared to the levels found in typical urban soils. However, the actual levels of dust and smoke deposited in individual buildings and businesses need to be assessed for cleanup based on the actual surface loading of lead and asbestos. A systematic effort will be required to properly clean indoor locations in order to eliminate persistent levels of lead, asbestos, and other hazardous materials on surfaces and in the air ducts that service each residence or building (air ducts can be a reservoir of material that could be released into the indoor air if not properly cleaned).


Figure 9. Indoor deposition of dust and smoke released by the collapse of the WTC on 11 September 2001.

The high pH of the samples was probably caused by cement and other basic materials associated with construction debris in the deposited particles. This factor, along with the presence of long and thin glass fibers (nonasbestos) and attached agglomerated fine particles, must be considered when evaluating the initial lung irritations reported by residents and workers in the initial days and weeks after the collapse of the WTC buildings. The rain on 15 September and especially the heavy rains that fell on 24 September washed away much of the material from outdoor surfaces. However, because of the extremely dry weather pattern in the Northeast during fall 2001, dust still remained on some outdoor surfaces and rooftops through November. The WTC site itself was continually sprayed with water to keep the resuspendable dust levels down during recovery operations. The persistence of significant levels of the initial dust and smoke into the late fall were also associated with indoor locations, including buildings that had open ventilation systems or open windows at the time of the collapse, or had windows blown out during the collapse. The quantities of settled and resuspendable dust and smoke are of concern indoors. WTC dust and smoke could lead to health impacts if the toxic constituents present on the indoor surfaces are not cleaned properly and if the HVAC system of each structure is not concurrently cleaned, or cleaned before the cleanup of the indoor surfaces and reentry into the residence or office. The U.S. EPA and other organizations have repeatedly recommended using methods for removal of hazardous materials in residences and offices before rehabitation. This approach to cleanup is necessary to ensure that rehabitation clearance values are achieved for contaminants such as lead (i.e., 40 µg/ft2 on floors) (31).

Some types of material that were released are similar to materials that we are exposed to during our daily lives. At a minimum, however, extraordinarily high quantities of coarse and fine particles were released and dispersed after the WTC collapse; future analysis is needed on the health consequences of the exposure among commuters, workers, and residents. The differences in the three samples that we analyzed suggest that there were inhomogenities among aerosol materials released on 11 September and during the subsequent weeks. This is expected because of the large amounts of different materials present in each of the collapsed and burning structures.

The outdoor cleanup of the initially deposited material began days after the attack and continued for several months. The indoor cleanup activities have proceeded more slowly. Eventually, estimates of human exposure to the materials characterized in these three bulk samples will be made. In addition, the results for composition and particle size, with and without agglomerates on glass fiber and other fibrous particles, will be used in assessments of short-term and long-term effects among various populations including sensitive subgroups. The people potentially exposed to the initially suspended dust and smoke, or subsequently settled dust and smoke, would include unprotected rescue workers, residents, and workers in downtown Manhattan immediately after and in the first few weeks after the collapse. The settled dust and smoke could be resuspended and expose unprotected residential cleanup workers and workers and residents in poorly or inefficiently cleaned buildings for weeks to months after 11 September. Finally, the levels of exposure encountered will have to be placed into context with the materials that have been released from the diminishing smoldering fires that continued to burn until 14 December 2001.

Conclusions
The analyses of the three settled dust samples collected from areas downwind of the collapsed WTC have provided information that is valuable in assessing exposures of workers and residents to related dusts. These exposures have occurred during resuspension of such dusts, both outdoors and indoors, in the course of rescue, cleanup, and routine day-to-day activities. The vast majority of the mass was pulverized building and construction materials including cement, cellulose, and glass fibers. However, the fires produced aerosol particles that contained products of incomplete combustion. Toxicants with significant concentrations or potential surface loadings included asbestos, glass fibers, lead, and PAHs. Further, many of these particles had much smaller particles agglomerated on the surface. The identification of these major components is important for assessing acute inhalation of resuspendable dust and smoke, or direct inhalation during the first week after the attack. Because the material also settled indoors, if indoor locations are not cleaned properly, there is a potential for long-term inhalation contact or ingestion contact.

The types of PAHs detected in these initial samples are similar to the PAHs detected in air samples 3 weeks after the attack. The fires continued at Ground Zero until 14 December 2001, resulting in the need for longer exposure characterization for products of incomplete combustion. The levels of dioxin and PCBs are similar to those found in the general environment.



References and Notes

1. Claudio L. Environmental aftermath. Environ Health Perspect 109:A528-A537 (2001).

2. Kitsa V, Lioy PJ, Chow JC, Watson JG, Shupack S, Howell T, Sanders P. Particle size distribution of chromium--total and hexavalent chromium in inspirable and respirable soil particles from contaminated sites in New Jersey. Aerosol Sci Technol 17:213-229 (1992).

3. Pellizzari E, Lioy PJ, Quackenboss J, Whitmore R, Clayton A, Freeman N, Waldman J, Thomas K, Rodes C, Wilcosky T. The design and implementation of phase I national human exposure assessment study in EPA Region V. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 5:327-358 (1995).

4. Millette JR, Hopen TJ. Characterizing household dirt. In: Proceedings of the Second NSF International Conference on Indoor Air Health, 29-31 January 2001, Miami, FL. Ann Arbor, MI:NSF International, 2001;174-183.

5. Lioy PJ, Freeman NCG, Millette JR. Dust: a metric for use in residential and building exposure assessment, and source characterization. Environ Health Perspect (in press).

6. ASTM. Standard Practice for Sampling and Testing of Possible Carbon Black Fugitive Emissions or Other Environmental Particulate, or Both. ASTM D6602-00. West Conshohocken, PA:American Society for Testing and Materials, 2001.

7. Behrens JW. A Guide for the Microscopial Investigation of Vegetable Substances. Boston, MA:SE Cassino and Co, 1985.

8. Kerr PF. Optical Mineralogy. 4th ed. New York:McGraw Hill, 1977.

9. McCrone WC, Delly JG. The Particle Atlas. 2nd ed. Ann Harbor, MI:Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1973.

10. Gard JA. The Electron-Optical Investigation of Clays. Mineralogical Society, Monograph 3. London:Mineralogical Society, 1971.

11. Basu S, Millette JR, eds. Electron Microscopy in Forensic, Occupational, and Environmental Health Sciences, New York :Plenum Press, 1986.

12. Blando JD, Porcia RJ, Li T-H, Bowman D, Lioy PJ, Turpin, BJ. Secondary formation and Smokey Mountain organic aerosol: an examination of aerosol polarity and functional group composition during SEAVS. Environ Sci Technol 32:604-613 (1998).

13. Offenberg JH, Baker JE. Aerosol size distributions of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban and over-water atmospheres. Environ Sci Technol 33:3324-3331 (1999).

14. Brunciak PA, Dachs J, Gigliotti CL, Nelson ED, Eisenreich SJ. Atmospheric polychlorinated biphenyl concentrations and apparent degradation in coastal New Jersey. Atmos Environ 35:3325-3339 (2001).

15. Wise SA, Schantz MM, Hays MJ, Koster BJ, Sharpless KS, Sander LC, Benner BA, Schiller SB. Certification of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in mussel tissue and air particulate - Standard Reference Materials (SRMs). Ploycyclic Aromatic Compounds 9:209-216 (1996).

16. Haffer M, Yang I, Buckley B. GC/Ion trap mass spectrometry for semi-volatile organics monitoring in drinking water sources, fish tissue and sediments, same instrument different songs. In: Book of Abstracts Presented at PITTCON 1999, 7-12 March 1999, Orlando, FL. Pittsburgh :Pittsburgh Conference, 1999;999.

17. Haffer M, Yang I, Cashman K, Buckley B. An improved microwave extraction method for the analysis of semi-volatile organic compounds extracted from soils and sediments using GC/ITMS and GC/ITMSMS. In: Book of Abstracts Presented at PITTCON 2000, March 12-17, 2000, New Orleans, LA. Pittsburgh :Pittsburgh Conference, 2000;1255.

18. U.S. EPA Method 1613. Tetra- Through octa-Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans by Isotope Dilution HRGC/HRMS (Rev. B). Washington, DC:U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division, 1994.

19. U.S. EPA. RCRA SW846 Method 8290. Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins (PCDDs) and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (PCDFs) by High Resolution Gas Chromatograph/High Resolution Mass Spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS). Washington, DC:U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, 1994.

20. Hale RC, LaGuardia MJ, Harvey EP, Mainor TM, Duff WH, Gaylor MO. Polybrominated dipenyl ether flame retardants in Virginia freshwater fishes (USA). Environ Sci Technol 35:4585-4591 (2001).

21. Gyntelberg F, Suadincani P, Nielson JW, Skov P. Dust and the sick building syndrome. Indoor Air 4(4):223-238 (1994).

22. Millette JR. Early studies characterizing household dirt. Microscope 49(4):201-208 (2001).

23. Molhave L, Schneider T, Kjaergaard SK, Larsen L, Norn S, Jorgensen O. House dust in seven Danish offices. Atmos Environ 34:4767-4779 (2000).

24. Lioy PJ, Yiin LM, Adgate J, Weisel C, Rhoads GG. The effectiveness of home cleaning intervention strategy in reducing potential dust and lead exposures. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 8:17-35 (1998).

25. Lioy PJ. Measurement methods for human exposure analysis. Environ Health Perspect 103(suppl 3):35-43 (1995).

26. ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Jet Fuels (JP-5 and JP-8). Atlanta, GA:Agency for Toxic Substances
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. Could you edit your post?
Only four paragraphs are allowed so we don't infringe on copyrights and also a link would be helpful.

Thanks and welcome to DU :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #30
39. Perhaps you should give them more than 3 minutes to do so.
Edited on Sun Mar-19-06 12:52 PM by Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #27
78. Two problems with this analysis
The samples weren't collected until 5-6 days later and they were taken off of objects outside of the buildings.

I would assume that the ppm would be a lot higher for samples taken much sooner after the event and also from deeper inside of the buildings. Of course, the EPA didn't take or test more suitable samples so that information may never be known.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
29. Here is another dust analysis ..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #29
38. official analysis ...
it is an argument that official analysis can not be trusted because the government might try to hide the explosions.

But it is a bad argument because the official one can be counterweighted by other ones so that the credibility of the experts who did the official one would get lost. The end of a career. Okay - this might not be of importance when Langley provides better money. But fact is that the logic says: officials better stay quiet than provide evidence for the other side. they hide and destroy evidence in order not to be forced to discuss it.

about this thread: I notice it gets a lot of attention because of the title and because the believers do not like to be stirred up when doing their religious service.

It is religion. Senseless, without logic. With miracles and all other ingredients of religion.

I am the least to deny that the official story has holes. But I try to push the sceptics to understand that it is important to look into the still existent grounds of evidence and into the official holes. But not tp dig new holes.

Even IF the "explosions" took place -which is comple nonsense - but even IF: the WTC towers were hit by the planes and damaged enough not to be used anymore. The effect would have been the NEED of tearing them down. So where is the sense of all this rubbish discussion ? Imagine you would discuss a murder. I sit really important if the victim was burned by accident or burned by the try to hide evidence (so by the murderer) when you already know that the victim was shot befor he was burned ?

Ask who shot the victim. You ask the wrong questions, friends. Completely wrong, since years. The mirderer would be glad seing the investigators ask "firebrigade-questions" instead of police-questions. (Beside so much idiotisms.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. Explosions did occur
Even IF the "explosions" took place -which is comple nonsense


Where do you think the sound of explosions came from?

Video Evidence:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/googlelowrez.html
(forward to 56:00)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #43
54. I agree: pancakes are silent
tons of concrete are not when falling on the flat below. One by one. Increasingly rapid, but at first one by one.

It makes dust too. Imagine your ceiling comes down. Your neighbour might get video evidence for "explosions".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
simonm Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #54
57. View the video
The sounds of explosions start before the building collapses.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #57
71. yawn. For sure. I know. That is what I said. n.t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sgsmith Donating Member (305 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #57
75. What's going on inside the building?
That you can't see? If the floors and interior structural steel collapsed before the exterior walls, that would explain the sound of "explosions" - just the sound of the floors and columns coming apart. It would also explain the "squibs" that appear several floors below the breakup on the exterior walls.

But wait, you say, the interior and interior had to collapse together! Really?? Isn't there some portion of the exterior still standing even without the interior steel? That alone disproves that they had to collapse together - otherwise there wouldn't be anything still standing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #54
97. Examples of pancaked collapses
Wie geht's medienanalyse? Here are some earthquake examples from India. The concrete in a pancake collapse isn't pulverized. It also looks like a pancake.




http://gees.usc.edu/GEES/RecentEQ/India_Gujarat/Report/Damage/Bhuj/Bardet_Feb18.html

http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/EQ_Reports/Bhuj/build_rc1.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #38
82. This was not an official analysis ..
it was done by a private lab for litigation purposes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #38
101. Despite all the discussion
about the physical evidence, that we really have very little access to, we don't need to prove how the towers fell or where the airplanes went to prove at the least LIHOP and more likely MIHOP.

When someone asks me to prove LIHOP/MIHOP, I tell them just look at what the top leaders said and did that morning. Their actions are enough to damn them. We don't need no stinking dust samples to prove their guilt.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. We don't need no stinking evidence to know they're guilty...
Edited on Mon Mar-20-06 08:00 PM by salvorhardin
Actually, you do. Until then you're just sitting around the electronic campfire making up stories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. Oh I've got evidence
it's just not made out of dust.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
48. Free Fall Proves Demolition, Images Show How Free Fall Attained
This page shows how free fall was attained.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

The only problem for those who think our government is okay, is believing that government has been infiltrated by an element that planned the demolition of the towers before they were built.

If folks cannot believe that our gov is that messed up, then they will never be able to understand how the towers came down at rates comparable to free fall.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #48
93. buildings didnt fall
the buildings didnt fall at free fall. so that right there makes that portion of a controlled demoltion theory wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #93
95. Oh, but they did
fall at free fall speed. So that blows a big hole in the OCT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #95
99. no they did not
they fell at speeds that were near free fall but not at free fall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. -very- close to free fall,
whereas even 'normal' CD is usually significantly slower, let alone a collapse where the structure of the building is not weakened by explosives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tobias Donating Member (93 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 03:27 AM
Response to Original message
89. A Link for Andreas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-21-06 03:47 AM
Response to Reply #89
106. delete by author
Edited on Tue Mar-21-06 04:08 AM by mirandapriestly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-21-06 06:38 AM
Response to Original message
108. We can't conclude ANYTHING ...
without the results of your proposed tests.

Why wasn't the second of these simple tests performed byt our government? Just asking ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 04:24 AM
Response to Original message
112. This is very uncomfortable....I agree with you.
You're actually making some sense.

(I think we probably both feel a little dirty now...)

;) :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soothsayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
113. There ARE WTC folks who noticed strange goings on. Weird
construction noises on empty floors, dust all over the place inside the WTC offices, and of course the infamous 'power down' of both buildings on Sept 8-9. Why do you think ground zero was not preserved as a crime scene? (EXCEPT that folks were forbidden to take pics of it because it WAS a crime scene). All the body parts washed down the sewers or buried in Fresh Kills landfill under piles 1 and 9, and all the steel quickly dispatched to India and China to be melted down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 06:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC