by Scott Creighton
(The following is a reply to an individual who asked for my evaluation of what would be the best case scenario for testing of dust samples from Ground Zero. After years of research and considerable amounts of thought devoted to this part of the ongoing unofficial investigation into 9/11, this process that I have devised (along with input from many others) is the best that I have come up with thus far. It considers legal ramifications, potential false samples, corrupted samples, direct sabotage from within the Movement, future debunking talking points, and various other potentially disqualifying factors which might undermine both test results and the credibility of said results. It is by no means the only way to test these materials nor is it written in stone. However it is the opinion of this researcher that if followed, this process, though difficult and potentially expensive, would produce unimpeachable results which would stand-up to the scrutiny of educated debunkers and defense attorneys alike. It would yield hard, undeniable, scientific evidence that massive amounts of high explosives were used during the demolition of the World Trade Center complex. When combined with the uncontroversial circumstantial evidence amassed by researchers like David Ray Griffin, Dr. Grame MacQueen, Kevin Ryan and others, it is my contention and that of others, that controlled demolition will become the accepted narrative in terms of public understanding of what happened on Sept. 11th 2001 and from there a new criminal investigation must follow given the preponderance of evidence and growing ground-swell of public outrage.)
Testing for high explosive residue in the Ground Zero dust samples will not be an easy process, not as easy as say.. setting up an “I” beam in your backyard and fabricating some clumsy way to make thermite cut a notch in it and then claim that is proof that thermite could have taken out 5′ long box columns made up of 5″ thick steel walls in less than a 10th of a second (which is what would be needed in a controlled demolition sequence). This is not to say that the effort I just described was ill-conceived, it just means that the process I am about to describe must be handled in a different manner; one in line with forensic testing criteria for future legal purposes.
We know from the diligent efforts of many researchers who have come before us that circumstantial evidence of a controlled demolition is already well established. Eye witness reports who claim to have seen explosions and flashes of orange lights floor by floor proceeding in advance of the collapse of the Twin Towers, audio recordings of explosions, testimony recorded on the day of the event by witnesses like Barry Jennings and others, physical results of the demolition as witnessed in many videos, the RJ Lee Group report and the USGS report which found material evidence that could not have been created in a “collapse” sequence as described by the official narrative of 9/11… all of this and more provide us with ample evidence, some circumstantial, some physical, of the explosive controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.
Nearly two thousand architects and engineers, collected together by the tireless efforts of Richard Gage and his staff at AE911Truth, have risked their reputations and their careers to come out publicly and state that the Twin Towers could not have collapsed the way the official story would have us believe.
It is well established that several explosive controlled demolition companies were on site at Ground Zero on the day in question, many of them being there directly after the first plane hit the first tower. The owner of one of those companies actually provided NIST with the reasons they cited for not testing for explosive residues on the material they had available to them for their investigations.
The efforts of those running the Building What? campaign is without precedent in the Truth movement. The facts surrounding the demolition of Building 7 are unquestionable and well established and now with the recent efforts of those working to bring those facts to the general public, they are working their way into the public’s understanding of the events of 9/11.
The stage is set for the introduction of potentially the most damning hard evidence of the unofficial investigation into the events of 9/11 since the RJ Lee Group discovered metallic and other materials that had been vaporized under extreme pressure in the dust from Ground Zero. If handled correctly, professionally, and per the prescribed method detailed below, the results of these tests will help turn the tide of public opinion and potentially force the creators of the official narrative to change their version of the truth one more time and thus further expose the fraud of Sept. 11th.
With the tenth anniversary of 9/11 approaching, it is time we endeavored to fulfill the duty of our investigation by putting forth the efforts to complete this necessary testing procedure which should by all rights have been done by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the 9/11 Commission Report staff.
Description of the Process (reply to an email request for such information)
For one thing, there are many people in the Truth movement as well as those outside the Truth movement who damn sure don’t want us to run these tests so you have to be careful who you approach.
But if you are really interested, I will share with you what I have come up with over the past two years that I have been working on this. Perhaps in your future discussions with others on this subject, you can find some useful info in this communication or perhaps even bring me into the discussion as you will clearly see I am probably the leading advocate in the movement for this kind of investigative process.
It is not as simple as just running tests.
The following are 6 major issues that must be dealt with. They are not the only issues but these are the ones that I can foresee as things that must be addressed right up front if this process is to yield useful, prosecutable, evidence that can withstand any and all scrutiny either in a public debate forum or in a court of law. I will attempt to address these issues one at a time.
3. sample integrity
4. testing procedures (yes, plural)
For this effort to work in the manner prescribed above, it has to be completely transparent. That is not to say that it has to be publicized as a media event, but it does have to be completely open and without any hidden processes.
There can never be any indication that the outcome of these tests will be swept under the rug if they return negative results. This is key and it is one of the most important qualifiers of the entire process. Without transparency, without full disclosure, no matter what the results, without this, there is no integrity in this procedure and it is not worth doing. Period.
(One caveat: Sources of materials will not be made public at the beginning but may be later in the process as per their decision – meaning the individuals who send in the samples for testing. This is so that their future integrity as potential witnesses will not be compromised.)
Preliminary testing (explained in the testing procedures section) should be done in an open public forum with recording devices (video) and independent observers on hand.
Handling of materials submitted must also be recorded. Ideally, when the preliminary testing facility is set up, those submitting samples for testing should hand over said materials to testing agents directly, thus reducing chain of custody numbers and preventing accusations of manipulation of samples.
Test labs will be chosen and will remain undisclosed until testing is complete and confirmation tests are also complete. But after that, the names of the labs and their FULL test results must be made public immediately with no delay.
Chain of custody of all materials tested must be made available to authorities, but not to the general public at first. Sample owners will maintain a sample of their original materials as a control. Therefore their identities should remain undisclosed from public knowledge until such time as those control samples can be secured or the official investigation is underway.
Control samples will become evidence in a mass murder investigation and must ALWAYS be treated as such.
Under the circumstances which exist today, the security aspect of this process goes without saying. Samples must be secure at all times. Protecting identities of the people who submit the samples is vital but so is protecting those of us preparing and running these experiments.
Transparency will be one of the most important aspects of security for reasons which should be clear enough.
The preliminary testing facility, though open to the public, MUST BE SECURE… even from other members of the Truth movement. It would be too easy to violate the integrity of the testing facility and therefore undermine the results of the tests themselves, therefore access to said facility must be STRICTLY LIMITED and security MUST be provided at all costs. Testing facility and observation area must be clearly separated, think in terms of a surgical operating theater. (detailed schematics of a proposed facility available upon request)
3. Sample Integrity
Sample handling and collection has been discussed. The integrity of the samples once submitted must not come into question and full transparency and security of said materials will ensure that is the case.
But sample integrity does not start nor end there. The samples MUST come from a pristine, unimpeachable source. Private individuals can and will be used as material sources but they must be thoroughly screened.
Location date and time of collection must be recorded as well as the storage process they used to hold the materials. Many people probably collected samples of this material for future use and never opened nor displayed said material in any way that would be embarrassing in future court proceedings or call into question the profession manner in which they handled the material.
This is key and it MUST be taken into consideration prior to acceptance of samples.
4. Testing Procedures
There are multiple tests that can and should be run on said materials in order for the tests themselves and the results to be considered viable.
PRELIMINARY TESTING PROCESS (open to public)
(Sample holders should present, on video, samples to technicians themselves. They will open their sample there in a clean environment, remove a predetermined amount of material for testing, reseal their remaining material which will be held by them as a control. Their sample will be assigned a random number, NOT a predetermined number, and said sample will be held in que until all samples are submitted. Then each sample will be tested, in RANDOM ORDER so that no testing technician ever knows which sample they are testing nor from whom it was submitted. ONLY the TESTING FACILITATOR (Truth advocate running preliminary testing process) will know the identities of the samples until testing preliminary testing process is complete. The testing material samples will also be maintained with a small portion held as a secondary control for future comparison with the submitters control sample. These secondary control samples should be stored in a secured location and never leave the view of the rest of the Advocates until secured til final testing results are in. Test samples will be assigned a random number which the Testing Facilitator will record with the name of the person submitting the sample and also written on a slip sealed in an envelope and given to the person submitting the sample. The envelope will then be signed by the person who owns the sample and handed to the EVENT RECORDING OFFICIAL who will leave it sealed until the entire process is complete.)
FIRST: The RJ Lee Group report has established what is considered a blue-print for Ground Zero dust samples.
There is a specific elemental, physical blue-print of the material and ALL SAMPLES MUST BE TESTED to ensure that they actually come from the Ground Zero area on that date, Sept. 11th 2001. This process will be the first in a series of tests performed during preliminary testing and should be performed by technicians familiar with the RJ Lee Group results.
This testing process may involve the most time and effort. Depending on the amount of samples to be tested, multiple testing stations can be prepared.
SECOND: High explosive residue can be washed from material samples but the wash itself will leave trace elements which will expose this process. Testing for those could be performed. Further investigation into this process is required.
THIRD: There are various field tests from the forensic investigation industry that should be considered for this stage of testing. These tests are accurate and certifiable in a court of law if performed correctly by skilled technicians. These tests can produce extremely accurate readings and even measurements of percentages of trace elements of high explosive residues with the smallest of test sample materials.
(suggestions for forensic field testing kits : SIRCHIE ERTT10 Explosive Residue Test Kit-image below-cost 225.50 USD)
Fourth: A second field test with the same type of forensic kit MUST be performed, preferably by a different technician, preferably simultaneously to the first field test at a different testing station.
Fifth: A second TYPE of forensic field test could be performed on sample material if funding and time permits.
With field testing procedures complete, results which are recorded by technicians and sealed in envelopes with the sample number on the outside are then collected by the recording official directly from technicians. All technician tests are recorded via closed circuit video cameras located above their work stations. The circuit monitors are in a separate area, sealed off from any observation.
Once all tests are complete, the recording official and the Testing Facilitator, under view of video recording devices, open each envelope individually and record, in real-time, the results of the tests. Each envelope should contain statements: confirming the authenticity of the sample, the absence of additional wash residue, and results from 2 or more forensic tests for the presence of high explosive residue.
If enough samples are tested it would be good to have a map of the Ground Zero area with the locations of the sample collection points mapped out. As the results are returned, these sample results are plotted on the area map. If concentration levels are determinable by technicians, this should map out highest concentration to lowest and that may indicate original source of high explosives.
Sixth: Remaining samples of positive results could then be packaged immediately and sent to pre-determined forensic labs for further testing and more detailed evaluation of which residues are present. Results of these tests will be mailed directly from the testing facilities to 1. Testing Facilitator 2. Owner of Sample 3. Event Recording Official
(suggestions for testing labs : LEEDER Consulting – using EPA 8330, EPA 8270C, and for specialty explosives like PETN HPLC)
If funds are available, remaining samples could be split and sent to two separate testing facilities.
Results of these prescribed tests must be published immediately and with no delay. In fact, depending on the length of the process of the field testing, certain aspects of this process could be broadcast live via any number of websites.
This is a deal-breaker and MUST be agreed upon on the outset of this much-needed project.
The Truth movement is NOT a public relations campaign. It is an unofficial INVESTIGATION into the events of 9/11.
ALL evidence of this ongoing investigation leads us to the inescapable conclusion that an explosive controlled demolition using conventional and proven high explosives common in the controlled demolition industry, occurred on Sept. 11th 2001.
As with any investigation where the use of high explosives are suspected, these tests, this process detailed above, is crucial to the investigation and therefore MUST be performed.
This process can and should be conducted PRIOR to the upcoming anniversary of Sept. 11th so as to not interfere with the scheduled memorials and remembrance of those who lost their lives and their loved ones on that day.
Considering the fact that no official entity has attempted to run these tests, entities that have worked diligently to avoid the conclusion of a controlled demolition, and considering all the hard work and scores of evidence compiled by previous researchers, positive results of these tests are almost a foregone conclusion.
In fact, careful observers of the ever-changing “official story” of 9/11 can already see the preparations taking place to attempt to explain away what they must anticipate these tests will prove: that high explosive residue exists in Ground Zero dust in massive quantities. This in itself must not be a deterrence any more than the anticipated theatrics of a defense attorney do not dissuade the prosecutor from submitting evidence in a trial.
We are building a case, we have been building a case, and understanding that those who seek to obfuscate the truth of 9/11 will not just give up is vital to our current and future morale.
We must understand from the offset that this is just another piece of the puzzle, one that will add an all important bit of hard physical evidence, but just one more piece in the end. One more tool in the arsenal of the Truth Movement, yet an important one, and perhaps one that will help spur a revitalization of the movement and eventually help to finally expose what really happened on Sept. 11th 2001.
In short, this is a process whose time has come.
But for an outcome so potentially beneficial to our cause, many risks are inherently involved and therefore careful efforts must be set in place to defend the integrity of the tests themselves and the usefulness of the results they produce. This is not PR, it is professionalism and foresight.
Without careful consideration of all of these aspects of running these tests, we risk tainted results and diminished returns on our efforts… neither of which the Truth movement in its current state can afford.
(PS:NOTE TO ORIGINAL QUESTIONER
3.1 Solvents, reagents, glassware and other sample processing hardware
may yield discrete artifacts and/or elevated baselines, causing misinterpretation
of the chromatograms. All of these materials must be demonstrated to be free
There were an estimated 10,000 fluorescent tubes pulverized along with everything else in the demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 not to mention glass windows and skylights and other materials. The pulverized glass itself may yield tainted results or other “discreet artifacts” familiar with controlled demolition debris, even human remains may affect this process… or then it may serve simply as material for future debunkers to dismiss the results. Also, method 8330 is specifically designed for use with soil, sediment, and water samples, not construction debris. Testing processes designed FOR man-made debris should be considered first.
Also, Method 8330 does not list PETN as a high explosive which will be detected by the process.PETN is the most commonly used high explosive in the demolition industry by weight and most likely the means by which the 220 floors of the Twin Towers were pulverized. The RJ Lee Group report findings of extremely high temperatures present in the collapse sequence also tend to insinuate that PETN was used as that it burns at a temperature of from 7,600 deg F to 8,000 deg F. More than enough to create the metal spheres observed in the dust.
Octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine HMX 2691-41-0
Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine RDX 121-82-4
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene 1,3,5-TNB 99-35-4
1,3-Dinitrobenzene 1,3-DNB 99-65-0
Methyl-2,4,6-trinitrophenylnitramine Tetryl 479-45-8
Nitrobenzene NB 98-95-3
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene 2,4,6-TNT 118-96-7
4-Amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene 4-Am-DNT 1946-51-0
2-Amino-4, 6-dinitrotoluene 2-Am-DNT 355-72-78-2
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,4-DNT 121-14-2
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2,6-DNT 606-20-2
2-Nitrotoluene 2-NT 88-72-2
3-Nitrotoluene 3-NT 99-08-1
4-Nitrotoluene 4-NT 99-99-0
Other processes are available. I would ask your source for more details as to this specific testing procedure.)