Dust to Dust:Testing for Residue of Conventional High Explosives in Ground Zero Dust is a Possibility

by Scott Creighton

UPDATE: Well, no replies as of yet. Perhaps dis-info campaigns such as “micro nukes”, “ray-beams from space”, and “nano-thermite” have won the day after all.

“Editors Note: It is important to point that micro nukes were most likely used at the base core of the WTC buildings in conjunction with nano-thermite and C-4.” The Intel Hub June 25th 2012


Over the years I have been one of the most outspoken proponents of running standard tests on the dust collected from Ground Zero to see if in fact there are residual traces of conventional high explosive residues present in it. This type of test has been called for by many of the so-called 9/11 Truth “researchers” but they never seem to find the time to do it and then, in the end, when I pressed a few of them on the subject, they flatly refused for “PR” blowback reasons. Or so they told me.

However, our detractors could be counted on to do their best to use a negative result against us for P.R. purposes. They would say that we have a non-scientific belief, since a negative outcome from an experiment fails to shake it. ;-)    Thus, the potential costs of doing what you’re proposing and coming up empty-handed, or worse, must be considered.”  Gregg Roberts of AE9/11 truth

I even went so far over a year ago to carefully construct and publish what I thought was the best process by which to run the tests themselves.

Proposed Testing Procedure for High Explosive Residues in Ground Zero Dust

After years of research, it is my hypothesis, which I still stand behind to this day, that the Twin Towers were taken out via an explosive controlled demolition and that during the design stages of the process, they relied too heavily on the use of det cord in the floor systems (see image below) which led to the vaporization of most of the truss systems which was accidentally revealed (the metal micro-spheres) when the RJ Lee Group did their Composition and Morphology study of the Ground Zero dust samples for Deutsche Bank .

The RJ Lee study also found that temperatures had been reached “at which lead would have undergone vaporization”– meaning 1,749°C (3,180°F).

Another study was carried out by the US Geological Survey, the purpose of which was to aid the “identification of WTC dust components.” Besides also finding iron particles, the scientists involved in this study found that molybdenum had been melted. This finding was especially significant, because this metal does not melt until it reaches 2,623°C (4,753°F). Griffin

Why do I bring all of this up now?

Good question.

Simply put: I now have several small (very small) and as of yet unconfirmed Ground Zero dust samples and I am looking for your input as to what to do with them.

Let me explain…

After prolonged communications with another Truth advocate, samples were collected by him and forwarded to me for testing purposes. At this point and until I am given permission to disclose this individual’s identity, I will refrain from doing so. Suffice to say this person has an extensive history with the Truth movement and has worked with various high profile groups over the years.

Let me also say that this person has put no preconditions on the types of testing or the institutions that will be eventually chosen for the processing, in the event that course of action is pursued.

Yes. It is not yet a given that even I will have these tests run. There are several factors to consider, hence this article.

The samples are small. Some, I feel, are too small for the full process which I describe in the above linked article which would require dividing the samples into at least 4 portions each: one to test to see if it is from Ground Zero Sept. 11th; one to send to an independent lab for evaluation of the presence of high explosive residues (preferably we would send to two separate facilities as a control); one to test video live feed video with a forensic approved field test kit; and one to keep as a control of the sample in it’s pristine condition.

That’s a lot of testing and these samples are rather small to say the least. The verification step and the field testing steps along with the control sample are mandatory parts of this process. I will test nothing if I can’t verify that it is actually from Ground Zero.

Another aspect of this decision making process is the fact that I don’t have a clear chain of custody for each of these samples. This is something that would seriously inhibit our effectiveness given a positive result of the testing. Questions could always arise as to the samples having been either accidentally or purposefully tainted. Also, it would hinder potential legal processes in the future.

Cost of course is a big issue. If the choice is made to run these tests, to implement the process which I have laid out, then the cost would be rather high and as many of you may know, I certainly can’t afford to shoulder that burden fully myself. There would have to be some kind of fund set up from donations from the Truth community to help with the costs. Yet, I think given the determination of the remaining Truth advocacy movement, and my commitment to complete transparency of the process, I think this stumbling block would be the easiest to overcome.

There are serious questions as to whether or not I could get a certain lab to test the samples and see if they match their existing fingerprint of 9/11 Ground Zero dust. They may not be interested for political reasons or it could be cost prohibitive. As that I have yet to approach them, I do not know at this time.

These are serious concerns that need to be addressed. But I am not the only one involved here.

The Truth Movement, or what’s left of it after the various sell-outs and Sunstein agents have done their work over the years, is kind of at an impasse. Is more evidence really needed to prove that the Twin Towers didn’t collapse due to gravity? Don’t the majority of Americans and free thinking people across the world already accept the fact that the official story of 9/11 is bullshit? Will new hard scientific evidence push others to conclude what we have had to understand or open up the doors to a new investigation into the fact that 9/11 was a staged false flag event meant to kick off this “New American Century” of endless, limitless wars of aggression and the demolition of our civil rights and the creation of the for-profit police state in America?

Or will the American people say they simply don’t care like those clowns on CNBC did when talking about unelected bankers ruling the world?

Ultimately, I don’t know. I’ve known this material was coming for a week and now that it’s here, I have yet to formulate an unshakeable conclusion regarding these matters.

The Truth movement has always been an unofficial investigation into the truth of what happened on Sept. 11th 2001. This is the first type tests we should have run at the very beginning. They are tests that should have been run by FEMA and NIST and certainly the 9/11 Commission and the New York Attorney General’s office. But they weren’t and to my knowledge, no one in the Truth movement has run them either.

So here we are. Here I am. It’s not my movement, what’s left of it, it’s ours.

My question to you is this; please read the proposed testing procedure I link to above and tell me… should we do it? Is there a better way? Is it worth it? Is there any rational explanation why we shouldn’t do it?

Insight? Ideas? Tell me I’m an idiot? The floor is yours.

21 Responses

  1. Well, if the people who sent the small samples were too scared to do the testing, (and probably with good reason)…… and the samples cannot be truely confirmed , then it might be a set up for failure..
    Why didn’t any of the people with the ‘dust’ (orginal people) do the tests?
    The tests will only prove that explosives were used? The videos and eye witnesses also prove that …….. don’t they?
    I’m just wondering… : (

  2. Scott, i thought this over after a while, and here is my conclusion:

    It’s not worth it. If all the obvious evidence of a false flag incident hasn’t made a difference, then this explosive testing won’t make a dent.

    Too much time had passed, too many people are emotionally invested or afraid to believe the truth, and the Truth Movment has been napalmed due to those various disinformation agents.

    If anyone disagrees, please let me know. If I am missing something, it is vital that I be corrected…

    • I can’t really argue with either your position or Jan’s. I would like to. I would like to say that it would help and that more info, more evidence would force people to take a new, objective look at what happened that day, but the fact remains they already have more than enough reason to doubt the official story than the benchmark of “reasonable doubt” would demand. Fact is, most simply don’t WANT to know so NOTHING that we do will convince them. However… there is that nagging voice in the back of my head….

  3. the fact that you “don’t have a clear chain of custody for each of these samples” is crucial, and i’d say a dealbreaker. but even if you could establish a chain of custody…

    aassuming that someday, someway, there could actually be an honest and impartial investigation, i’d be very comfortable going in with the fact that the government failed to follow standard protocols and test the steel for explosives, and also made the evidence (steel) disappear. could anything be more incriminating on this point?

    plus, there is solid evidence of freefall (admitted by nist re bldg 7), highly credible and extensive eye-witness testimony of explosions, visual evidence of controlled demolition, and expert (A&E) testimony that bldg 7 and the towers came down in controlled demolitions consistent with the use of explosives. given all this evidence, it should not be incumbent upon us to affirmatively prove the presence of any specific type of explosive (or nanothermite, or anything else), via dust samples or any other analysis.

    given the overwhelming amount of existing evidence indicating that there were explosives involved, the burden of persuasion would be switched onto the official story tellers to prove that explosives weren’t used. if the officials can’t meet this burden (and they wouldn’t be able to), the investigative body to whom this issue was being presented (if we ever get there) would have to conclude that some kind of explosives were used, and go forward on that basis. that, in my opinion, is all we need.

  4. Don’t know when I quit believing the official story. Not long afterward. Probably sometime when I was over at ADS. Had more to do with gut than the science of it. Don’t know nothing about science, but I liked the way you argued, and backed up what you had to say.

    If anybody’s going to get credit for busting this thing open, I’d like to see it be you. You might have to listen to that nagging voice back there, or forever regret it.

    Anyway, I’ll do what I can for the pot if you decide to go for it. Won’t be nearly enough if they decide to try and run you out of money, though.


    • ah, there’s the rub, isn’t it? nothing of any real consequence can ever come from half measures and to seek what we have been seeking can only be motivated to the end by that inner voice. You have to feel it.

      I have many regrets. A lifetime of them. Stacked in forgotten places of my past. But not this site… not this journey. Not yet anyway.

      So why start now?

      You’re a pretty wise fellow for an old conspiracy theorist, Roy.

  5. Do it. Chain of custody is an issue as Dennis points out but I still think its worth it. A few questions though.

    First, the person who gave you the samples. I’m really hoping he/she comes forward, or at least allows you to tell their story with a few more specifics. Have they given you any indication that they will?

    The cost. Do you have any idea how much this will be? I tend to agree that if you set up a fund there are still enough 9/11 truth acitivists left to get it done.

    The lab. How realistic is this possibility? Have you looked into it at all yet or actually spoken to any labs that would be capable of doing this kind of testing?

    I wish you luck. It may be a long shot but I think its worth pursuing. I’ll do whatever I can with my very limited resources to help if/when you decide to move forward with this.

    • Hopefully, if it gets started (and I am going to write an inquiry letter to two labs which have done composition studies on the GZ dust to see if they can confirm the samples and the costs) we gain enough momentum such that other sample holders might chose to donate single holder pristine samples to have them tested as well. At that point, if it happens, look for some of the bigger names out there to jump on the band wagon and run tests themselves. The chain of custody issue with these samples may not be that much of a factor if we can start a chain reaction, so to speak.

      I don’t know how the person who sent me these is going to react. They know what I have in mind and they know legally they are part of the custody chain, but other than that, whether they chose to be out front on this is up in the air at this point.

      The testing is not difficult and is standard fare for forensic and environmental labs across the country. Rather commonplace I would imagine. The costs I do not yet know.

      I guess the point is, in the end, I want to know if my hypothesis is correct and I don’t want to spend the rest of my days wishing I had taken the opportunity to find out. Whether or not the general population has some kind of epiphany or not is less than secondary. I hold no illusions about the relative ability for the average American to practice active doublethink in this post 1984 world we find ourselves in. the closer we get to the election the more obvious their talent at that learned trait becomes. If positive results do nothing more than clarify the demolition process for current members of the Truth movement and it shuts up the “ray beams from space” crowd, then it’s worth it for that reason alone.

      However, there is a law on the books that says that if high explosive residue is found at a fire or another crime scene that was not discovered in a previous investigation, then there must be a new investigation based on that evidence. I can’t remember where I read that, but I know it’s out there.

      But again, no pretense. I just want to know if I was right all these years. Selfish, I know. But selfish works sometimes I guess… at least that’s what the neo-liberal Ayn Rand says, right?

      • “If positive results do nothing more than clarify the demolition process for current members of the Truth movement and it shuts up the “ray beams from space” crowd, then it’s worth it for that reason alone.”

        That would be a nice bonus for sure.

        I look forward to hearing what these labs answers are. This may or may not be a “game changer”, but regardless its still worth it. The more concrete evidence we have on our side the better. This can only be a good thing.

        For those saying the PR would be negative if the results were inconclusive or showed no signs of explosives-Please, as if 9/11 truth can get any worse PR than it already has. This is no reason NOT to do this.

  6. Hey Scott,

    I think the answer is obvious. But before I give it, I want to mention that I, and about forty others attended a most interesting lecture given by Richard Gage in my small but active community. (He was saddened that the “millions” of people in the community had only packed the small room with the forty, until I stood up and said we had 80,000 locals around at most.) He showed his new video (available on CD) on a big screen that one of our local organizations provides. Although it made a fair amount of mention of thermite, it consistently reiterated that the WTC as brought down just by “explosives.” (I raised a discussion about this, which didn’t go too badly — more on that later, as I am tired at the moment.)

    (I also had a very interesting “individual” conversation with Richard, which I can also discuss later.)

    Here is what to do with the powder samples. (Surely more can be obtained in Manhattan, or somewhere.) Do just like the pros do, Scott. Drop the Dudley Do-Right approach, and have the samples tested with witnesses. If something like PETN is found, just make a big announcement. If not, tacitly “forget about it all” and go back and find more samples. This is exactly in accord with current best practices! You’re not planning on applying for sainthood, right?

    • I would love to hear more about the conversation with Richard when you are feeling better.

      here’s the thing about your suggestion: yeah, I thought about doing that, sure. But there are a couple of issues with it.

      1. There’s no way to verify where these came from beyond what someone told me. So really, what does running the test prove without verifying the sample? Even if it’s positive, it could have come from a different controlled demolition and then I report the positive results and run the tests to see where it came from, and I have to retract. If it’s negative, I’m still in the dark and I don’t run the tests to verify where it came from and I’m no better off than I was when I started.


      2. If it is negative and I just put the results aside and move on looking for other samples to test, what do I say later when I find positive results in a different sample when someone comes out and asks about the June 2012 tests I was going to run?

      Do I tell them they were negative so I ignored the results? Do I lie and say I never ran tests on those samples because I didn’t like them? Do I tell them those results don’t matter, only positive ones do? What does that do to the credibility of future results? Positive or negative, it could end up biting us in the ass either way.


      3. When I find pristine samples from GZ on Sept 11th 2001, there will be only one result of these tests; positive. It wasn’t gravity or crush down crush up. It wasn’t 150 kiloton nukes planted under the bedrock in Manhattan back in 1967. It wasn’t micro nukes or thermate or “nanothermite” or even “super thermite”… and it damn sure wasn’t ray beams from space or super secret HAARP earthquake weapons… it was a controlled demolition using conventional high explosives commonly used by the controlled demolition company who was there that day and who were in charge of the clean up afterward for 9 months and who provided NIST with their excuse as to why they didn’t test for high explosive residues in the Ground Zero dust.

      To me, it’s obvious. And now I want to prove it. To do so, I need one thing: clean, unadulterated samples from Ground Zero. So I need to test them.

      As to my premature “sainthood”: don’t I have to be dead to be a saint?

      It’s about transparency not Dudley Do-Right. It’s about not Giving the detractors, legal and otherwise, anything to use to discredit potential results.

      If to do that the tests need to be run out in the open in a forum or via a webcam, then that is fine with me.

      At least at that point, whether or not it is a positive result, the detractors will have to admit that the testing procedure was done accurately by those who knew what they were doing and more importantly they will have to admit that the Truth Movement, at least at that moment, was honestly looking for the truth no matter what the outcome, no matter what the cost.

      So in that light, even a negative result (though I doubt it is possible) serves our efforts in the long run.

      • I think you are actually spot on here, Scott. This project probably needs to be open and aboveboard. I just threw my “forget-the-negative” plan out there to stimulate thought (I take this sort of approach often). (Plus it helps bolster my image as a cynical SOB.) I think what we need is a “bring out your dust” movement in NYC. But who would they trust to give it to? (Julian Assange, presumably?) So they should be encouraged to give it to multiple parties, I suppose. Just guessing here, but multiple samples of diverse provenance would be one way to ameliorate the chain of custody problems. (I know, however, there is the cost issue.) So there’s lots to consider.

        Regarding the Richard Gage lecture, I didn’t sleep well, and am still a bit fuzzy, but can say a thing or two. Richard is a really good orator. I have come think this is why he was never invited to things like the Jesse Ventura conspiracy show. Jesse is not at all in the Truth movement in the sense you are; he’s a pure showman. He had to have those pencil-neck geek assistants and goofy low-rent “experts” to make the show work. He even had Alex Jones skulking timidly behind bushes. Some would claim this was just egotism, but I’m sure it’s not — he understood that it was just a whimsical conceit needed to grease the narrative. My take on Ventura is that he is not really dis-info, but just a natural result of the way things in the world must manifest. How else could it all play out, really?

        Even the strange Judy Wood “ray-beams from space” episode is stranger than some would gather. From my years in electronic technology, I recall occasionally meeting very well trained engineers who would inexplicably be attracted to fringe ideas, like “zero point energy,” and the Tesla stuff. Further reading led me to conclude that Wood is among the “zero point energy” mavens. So maybe she’s just a useful goofball. Obviously there is massive controlled opposition out there; but there are also those who are merely cunning showmen and useful goofballs. One I really do not trust is the illustrious, but decidedly dodgy, Dr. Steven Jones.

        • Remember, Jones, Wood, and Reynolds (“no planes hit the towers”, “tv fakery”) all started out together on the same website. Reynolds actually came straight from Bush’s commerce department. They were all handled by Fetzer. I don’t think it’s a stretch to conclude they were part of an organized disinfo campaign from the start.

      • A few ideas about the dust sample project. You might get a Post Office box to collect (perhaps anonymous) donations. Conspiracy analysts may not be inclined to send them via the internet.

        Maybe don’t leave the evidence lying about on the kitchen table. Establish networks with trusted people, who do not (all) need to know each other (small circles). These people, if reliable, can hold secrets and evidence. And some can whistle-blow if outsiders interfere with the project, or try to silence you. People such as Richard Gage or Kenny might help.

        I intend to stick a dust sample project status report at the top of some of my blogs, including:


        I will make it so people can leave comments if they register, in which they can indicate if they want me to use their sign-up email addresses for correspondence.

        You could put a dust sample project status report at the bottom of your new articles to indicate if you are running into outside interference. We’ll know it’s from you because we know your writing style. For example:

        :::: Dust sample project status = Good ::::
        Status codes are: Good, Fair, Serious, Critical — See:
        Good luck if you go ahead with this!

      • Here is the WordPress HTML for creating the dust sample project status box. You must replace “{|” with “”. You must paste it from a notepad app., NOT create it in the WordPress edit box.

        {|font color=”#FFFFFF”|}————{|/font|}:::: Dust sample project status = Good ::::
        Status codes are: Good, Fair, Serious, Critical — See:
        {|font color=”#FFFFFF”|}————{|/font|}{|a href=”https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/dust-to-dusttesting-for-residue-of-conventional-high-explosives-in-ground-zero-dust-is-a-possibility/”|}American Everyman Dust Sample Project{|/a|}
        It works in the original posts. Let’s try it in a comment:

        ————:::: Dust sample project status = Good ::::
        Status codes are: Good, Fair, Serious, Critical — See:
        ————American Everyman Dust Sample Project

        • Many HTML features are turned off on this site, especially for comments. I do prefer idependently hosted WordPress sites, where there seems to be much more freedom to tinker. (If you avoid nasty site malware from dodgy themes and plugins.)

  7. Does such a lab not need something like an equivalent, a control sample from GZ to test your sample against and to verify if your dust shows GZ characteristics? If that is the case, then such a lab would already be in possession of perhaps larger quantities of GZ dust…
    You say: ¨Im going to write an inquiry letter to two labs which have done composition studies on the GZ dust…¨ that means they might still be holding dust, because otherwise how are they going to verify if in case of explosives, these particles were not mixed in by you or anybody holding the samples earlier?
    I am just guessing, but I think any trained chemist could lace your sample with the desired explosives, even altering the pristine explosive residue to compound with the GZ dust (makes for chain of custody) in that case and in my mind, the only proof would be found when testing against a genuine sample – so they would have to test for explosives in a genuine sample! to determine frequency,diffusion of explosive particles and this is what they would be looking for in your sample to rule out tampering.

    In any case, as a first I would just test the origins of your sample – you have to know what you are holding – only after that comes the weighing in of pros and cons of further testing.

    • That makes sense…. and then you must wonder about any lab that actually has a ‘control’ specimen of pure GF ‘dust’. If they have it, don’t you think they have been ‘programmed’ to not do an honest test? Why don’t they test their ‘dust’ themselves?
      And why ‘dust’? Seems the particles of explosives might be heavier than ‘dust’…. and why not test actual articles that were blown out of the buildings? Wouldn’t the explosives have imbedded into any fixture that escaped? Any human that worked the clean up or observed or ran from the terrible clouds of debris ….. would their organs have evidence of explosives?
      I believe someone has tested….. and someone knows…. and someone is afraid to come forward.. or they are dead.

  8. Let me know what happens with this Willy? … I’ll back you up in every way I can ….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: