Monthly Archives: June 2009

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/06/23/washington.metro.crash.victims/index.html

Retired Maj. Gen. David F. Wherley Jr. and his wife, Ann, both 62, were killed along with seven others Monday in the most deadly train crash in the history of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

“He was as fine a public servant, as dedicated to the United States of America … as anyone I have ever met,” Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty told reporters Tuesday.

On the morning of the September 11 attacks, Wherley, commander of the 113th Fighter Wing at Andrews Air Force Base, deployed pilots with orders from then-Vice President Dick Cheney to protect the White House and take out any aircraft that threatened the Capitol, according to the 9/11 Commission Report.

“They said challenge them, try to turn them away; if they don’t turn away, use whatever force is necessary to keep them from hitting buildings downtown,” Wherley told the Washington Post in a 2002 interview.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=david_wherley

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/08/andrews-air-force-base-stand-down-how.html

At the time the 9/11 attacks began, many of the pilots with the District of Columbia Air National Guard (DCANG) were in the headquarters of the 121st Fighter Squadron at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland. They had been suspicious upon learning of the first crash in New York, but when a second plane hit the World Trade Center the emergency became obvious. “We’re under a terrorist attack!” someone yelled. One DCANG officer at the base exclaimed, “Well, holy shit, if this is a terrorist attack, we need to get something in the air!” According to Lt. Col. Steve Chase, who was at the operations desk there: “People just launched into action. There was a buzz in the unit.” [1]

Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation in Prince George’s County, Maryland. [5] It is the home of the 113th Wing and associated units of the DC Air National Guard, including the 121st Fighter Squadron. [6]

Andrews Air Force Base is located just 10 miles southeast of Washington, DC, and has been described as “one of the most modern bases in the Air Force.” [2] Yet the first fighter jet did not take off from there until well after the time the Pentagon was hit–possibly as late as 10:38 a.m.–and this was armed only with training ammunition. [3] The first properly armed jets took off at 10:52 a.m. [4]

Why did the units at Andrews perform so badly? Why did this base fail to protect the nation’s capital and prevent an attack on the nearby Pentagon? Despite the absence of any serious official investigation of these questions, evidence already available indicates that a number of subtle but effective measures may have been used to deliberately sabotage the emergency response and render the DC Air National Guard useless.

ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE AND THE DC AIR NATIONAL GUARD

According to a book published by the 1st Air Force, the 113th Wing “is not part of the NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command] air sovereignty force and did not have an alert mission” in 2001. [7] However, evidence clearly indicates it still should have been involved in defending the Washington area in response to the 9/11 attacks. Shortly before September 11, the “DC Military” website stated that the 113th Wing’s mission included providing “capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency.” [8] The day of 9/11, Knight Ridder reported, “Air defense around Washington, DC, is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base.” [9] Indeed, the DC Air National Guard was known as the “Capital Guardians.” [10] And while he has said, “We’ve never been an air defense unit,” Lt. Col. Phil Thompson–the chief of safety for the 113th Wing–admitted, “We practice scrambles [i.e. taking off as fast as possible, to inspect enemy aircraft], we know how to do intercepts and other things.” [11]

Why then didn’t Andrews AFB successfully defend Washington? The following five key pieces of evidence suggest its ability to respond to the attacks may well have been sabotaged:

1) ONLY SEVEN PILOTS WERE AVAILABLE FOLLOWING THE ‘RED FLAG’ TRAINING EXERCISE

The 121st Fighter Squadron had recently participated in a massive training exercise in Nevada. “Red Flag,” an exercise held four times a year at Nellis Air Force Base, ran from August 11 to September 7, 2001, and the 121st FS only returned from it on September 8. [12] Most of the DC Air National Guard pilots are involved with the unit on a part-time basis, while flying commercial jet planes in their civilian lives. [13] Apparently as a result of Red Flag, most of the 121st FS’s pilots were back at their usual airline jobs, and the unit only had seven pilots available on September 11. [14] Prior to taking off in response to the attacks, some of these pilots had been uploading onto disks the flight data they would need once airborne, such as navigational waypoints, maps, and frequencies. Reportedly, these disks “still contain[ed] all the Nellis data from the Red Flag training exercise they just returned from.” [15] This raises the question of whether the job of replacing the exercise data delayed the takeoffs.

2) THREE ANDREWS JETS WERE AWAY ON A TRAINING MISSION IN NORTH CAROLINA

Furthermore, when the 9/11 attacks began, three F-16s belonging to the 121st FS were 207 miles away from base, flying a training mission in North Carolina, where they’d gone “to drop some bombs and hit a refueling tanker.” [16] Therefore, three of the squadron’s seven pilots were unavailable to respond to the attacks. Critically, the F-16s were out of radio range with the base. So when weapons officer Major Daniel Caine wanted to recall them, he had to contact a tanker refueling plane they were scheduled to meet and ask its pilot to pass on an urgent “return to base” message. [17] The three fighter jets did not arrive back at Andrews until after the Pentagon was hit. [18]

3) THE SECRET SERVICE SAID IT DIDN’T NEED HELP

Unlike other Air National Guard units, the DC Air National Guard reported to the president rather than a state governor. The president, in turn, had delegated that authority to the Department of Defense. Also, because of its responsibility to protect the president, the Secret Service had a level of authority over the DCANG, and 121st FS officers had a close relationship with Secret Service agents who worked at Andrews Air Force Base. [19]

After the second attack in New York, at 9:03 a.m., Daniel Caine called a contact in the Secret Service that he was friends with. He asked: “Do you have any additional information? Are you guys going to need some help?” Even though it was now obvious the U.S. was under attack and that Washington was a likely target for terrorists, the agent responded, “No, but I’ll call you back if that changes.” Lt. Col. Marc Sasseville, the commander of the 121st FS, has claimed: “At that time, we weren’t thinking about defending anything. Our primary concern was what would happen to the air traffic system.” [20]

It wasn’t until after 9:34 a.m., when the Secret Service learned of an unidentified aircraft approaching the White House, that an agent at the White House Joint Operations Center called Caine to request help. He asked: “Can you guys do anything? Can you get some fighters in the air as soon as possible?” [21] This was more than half an hour after the second plane hit the WTC. However, the emergency response was delayed even further. Caine has recalled, “Then [the Secret Service agent] told us to stand by and that somebody else would call.” The 113th Wing’s maintenance section started getting several F-16s armed and ready to fly. Finally, in a subsequent phone call, the Secret Service ordered Andrews AFB, “Get in the air now!” [22]

4) THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICE WAS UNABLE TO GET INFORMATION

The DC Air National Guard’s ability to respond to the attacks may also have been hindered because it was being denied the information it needed about what was happening, and had to rely instead upon CNN. At around 9:30 a.m., its intelligence officer went onto the SIPRNET–the Department of Defense’s classified version of the Internet–in search of pertinent information, but to no avail. He phoned anyone he could think of who might be able to help, including the Air Combat Command Intelligence Squadron at Langley Air Force Base, the 9th Air Intelligence Squadron at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina, Washington’s FBI field office, and the White House Joint Operations Center. Yet he was unable to find out anything more than what he’d learned from television. Author Lynn Spencer has claimed, “As DCANG is a general purpose F-16 unit, no one [was] specifically tasked with keeping the squadron informed.” [23]

The question to be investigated is whether this apparent agency-wide information blackout can be dismissed as the result of mere confusion, or was it due to sabotage?

5) THE SLOW REACTIONS OF GENERAL DAVID WHERLEY

The actions of Brigadier General David Wherley Jr. are particularly notable. As the commander of the DC Air National Guard, Wherley surely had a crucial role to play in responding to the attacks. However, although accounts are vague and sometimes contradictory, descriptions of what he did give us serious cause for concern.

Wherley was in the headquarters of the 113th Wing the morning of September 11. Yet reports indicate he only started taking action after 9:37 a.m., when the Pentagon was hit. According to the Washington Post, Wherley’s “first inkling that the attacks would go beyond New York was when one of his officers, whose husband worked at the Pentagon, saw on television that the building had been hit and began shrieking.” [24] After taking a moment to comfort the officer, he “raced out of his office and ran several hundred yards to the headquarters of the DC Guard’s 121st Fighter Squadron.” But then, upon learning that the Secret Service wanted Andrews to launch fighter jets, Wherley told squadron officers he wanted more explicit authorization, saying: “We have to get instructions. We can’t just fly off half-cocked.” [25]

Wherley talked over the phone with the Secret Service, which wanted the DCANG to establish a combat air patrol (CAP) over Washington. Yet he seemed reluctant to help. He told the Secret Service agent, “I would feel more comfortable receiving such an order from someone higher in the chain of command, preferably in the military.” He was given the number for the Presidential Emergency Operations Center–a bunker below the White House–which he then called. The Secret Service agent who answered implored Wherley: “We want you to put a CAP up over the city. We need some fighters now.” Yet Wherley was “not very comfortable taking orders from a Secret Service agent. That’s just not how things are done.” He asked, “Is there anybody else there from the military available to talk?” As there was not, he asked, “Is the vice president available?” The vice president was on the phone with the president. Only after further reflection did Wherley finally agree to help, saying: “Okay, then. What exactly do they want me to do?” [26]

Wherley then had to wait for the Secret Service to determine “exactly” what it wanted. According to the Washington Post, the instructions came “within a half-hour.” Again, another delay. [27] The Secret Service agent who got back to Wherley said he had received instructions that came from the vice president. The guidance was “to send up the aircraft, with orders to protect the White House and take out any aircraft that threatened the Capitol.” If the 9/11 Commission is correct, these instructions were not passed on to the first fighter jet that took off from Andrews, but instead only to “the pilots that launched at 10:42 and afterward.” By that time, of course, the attacks were long over. [28]

ANDREWS JETS ONLY TOOK OFF AFTER THE PENTAGON ATTACK

Taking into account these five pieces of evidence (and presumably there are other relevant details that we are as yet unaware of) it is unsurprising that the DCANG was so slow in responding to the 9/11 attacks. The first fighter jet to take off from Andrews Air Force Base in response was an F-16 piloted by Major Billy Hutchison–one of the aircraft that had been away on a training mission in North Carolina and had just returned to the base. Hutchison’s was the only one of the three returning jets with enough fuel remaining to take off again immediately, though he had just 2,800 pounds, which is equivalent to one-eighth of a tank in a car. He had no missiles and only training ammunition. He took off “without afterburner to conserve fuel, go across the White House over the Georgetown area and continue northwest up the Potomac.” [29]

The time when Hutchison took off is unclear. Different accounts have said he did so “Within minutes of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon,” [30] some time roughly around 10:00 a.m. [31], or “about 50 minutes after the Pentagon was hit.” [32] According to 113th Wing operations desk records, he did not take off until 10:33 a.m. [33], and, according to the 9/11 Commission, he was not airborne until 10:38 a.m. [34]

Hutchison has recalled that he circled low over the Pentagon some time after taking off. [35] Many witnesses who were on the ground have recalled seeing the first military jet arriving over the Pentagon following the attack there at around 10:40 a.m., or “closer to 11″ o’clock, according to the New York Times. In other words, the first Andrews jet to reach the Pentagon in response to the 9/11 attacks only arrived an hour or more after it had been hit–far too late to have been any use in preventing the attack there. Understandably, upon seeing the F-16 above, one firefighter exclaimed: “Thank God that guy’s there! Where has he been?” [36]

The next two F-16s to launch from Andrews took off at 10:42 a.m. These also had no missiles, and only non-explosive training rounds for their Gatling guns–”hardly enough to bring down an airliner,” the pilots have conceded. Finally, at 10:52 a.m., the first fighters armed with live ammunition and AIM-9 air-to-air missiles took off. [37] Their pilots were instructed to establish a combat air patrol over Washington and intercept any incoming aircraft. [38]

So, although the DC Air National Guard is meant to have realized, “We’re under a terrorist attack!” when the second plane hit the World Trade Center, and immediately to have “launched into action,” its first properly armed fighters did not take off until more than an hour after the Pentagon was hit, and more than two hours after the first attack in New York.

OTHER UNITS AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

The information currently available on Andrews Air Force Base and what happened there on 9/11 is vague, often contradictory, and only serves to raise new questions. For example, we know that, as well as the 113th Wing, there were other units at the base with fighter jets available. These included Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 321, which flew the sophisticated F/A-18 Hornet, and Naval Air Facility, Washington, DC, which provided “Naval air operations support for the Naval District of Washington,” and also had F/A-18 Hornets available. [39] Yet little is known about these units’ activities on September 11 and what they could have done to defend the capital.

It seems logical to assume, however, that fighter jets from Andrews should have been in the air protecting Washington and the Pentagon long before the Pentagon was hit. The question of why they failed to do so needs to be part of a serious and unrestrained new investigation of the 9/11 attacks.

NOTES
[1] Steve Vogel, “Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital.” Washington Post, April 8, 2002; Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 123.
[2] “Andrews AFB, Maryland.” GlobalSecurity.org, March 3, 2002.
[3] NBC Nightly News. NBC, September 11, 2001; Steve Vogel, “Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital”; 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Authorized Edition). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 44.
[4] Steve Vogel, The Pentagon: A History. New York: Random House, 2007, p. 446.
[5] “Andrews Air Force Base: Welcome.” DCMilitary.com, Summer 2001; “Andrews AFB, Maryland.”
[6] “Andrews Air Force Base: Partner Units.” DCMilitary.com, Summer 2001; “113th Wing.” GlobalSecurity.org, October 21, 2001.
[7] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America: Sept. 11 Alters Face of Air Defense Mission. Tyndall Air Force Base, FL: 1st Air Force, 2003, p. 76.
[8] “Andrews Air Force Base: Partner Units.”
[9] Steve Goldstein, “Focus of Training for Terrorist Attacks has Been Chemical, Biological Warfare.” Knight Ridder, September 11, 2001.
[10] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 122.
[11] William B. Scott, “F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93.” Aviation Week & Space Technology, September 9, 2002.
[12] “Photo: Exercise Routine.” Las Vegas Review-Journal, August 22, 2001; Steve Vogel, “Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital”; William M. Arkin, Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World. Hanover, NH: Steerforth Press, 2005, p. 476.
[13] Steve Vogel, “Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital.”
[14] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 156.
[15] Ibid. pp. 236-237.
[16] William B. Scott, “F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93″; Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, p. 79.
[17] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 124.
[18] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, p. 79; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 216-218.
[19] Steve Vogel, The Pentagon, p. 445; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 122-123.
[20] William B. Scott, “F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93″; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 124.
[21] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 9; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 156.
[22] William B. Scott, “F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93″; Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, p. 78.
[23] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, p. 79; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 155-156.
[24] Steve Vogel, “Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital.”
[25] Steve Vogel, The Pentagon, pp. 445-446.
[26] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 184-185.
[27] Steve Vogel, “Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital.”
[28] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 44.
[29] Steve Vogel, “Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital”; Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, pp. 79-81.
[30] William B. Scott, “F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93.”
[31] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, pp. 216-220.
[32] Steve Vogel, “Flights of Vigilance Over the Capital.”
[33] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, pp. 81 and 89.
[34] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 44.
[35] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, pp. 81-82.
[36] David E. Sanger and Don Van Natta Jr., “In Four Days, a National Crisis Changes Bush’s Presidency.” New York Times, September 16, 2001; Patrick Creed and Rick Newman, Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11. New York: Presidio Press, 2008, pp. 130-131.
[37] William B. Scott, “F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93″; Leslie Filson, Air War Over America, pp. 82-84; Steve Vogel, The Pentagon, p. 446.
[38] Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 238.
[39] “Andrews Air Force Base: Partner Units.”

 

The son of the late shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, seen here pausing ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/iranpoliticsmediauspahlavineda;_ylt=Ah7WCaK3bZYzoraxY8lpjNYFO7gF

The son of the late shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, was Monday carrying in his breastpocket a photograph of the slain protester known as Neda said to have been killed in the Tehran protests.

“I have added her (Neda) to the list of my daughters. She is now forever in my pocket,” Pahlavi told AFP fighting back tears, after calling at a press conference for Western media and governments to stand strongly alongside the protest movement in Iran.

The former crown prince of Iran took from his left breastpocket photographs of his wife, Yasmine, and three daughters, Noor, Iman and Farah, and, in the same clutch of images, one of a veiled Neda.

He held them up silently, and stammered an apology for having tears in his eyes.

A video of a blood-drenched young woman, purportedly killed in protests in Tehran, has been flashed around the world via the Internet since it was posted Saturday.

The woman, known only as Neda, has become a symbol of Iranian defiance of the country’s Islamic rulers and their insistence that hardline incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won this month’s presidential election.

In a speech at the packed National Press Club in Washington, Pahlavi slammed the “brutal violence of the regime’s plain-clothes thugs against unarmed people” and urged global media to continue to be “the international artery” of the Iranian protest movement.

“No one will benefit from closing his or her eyes to knives and cables cutting into faces and mouths of our young and old, or from bullets piercing our beloved ‘Neda’ whose only sin was the quest for freedom — no one but tyrants and their thugs,” Pahlavi said, breaking off his speech as he was overcome by emotion.

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

After removing the left-leaning government of Mohammad Mosaddeq, (which had planned to nationalize Iran’s oil industry), from power on 19 August 1953, in a coup, supported and funded by the British and U.S. governments, the Shah decided he wanted an effective internal security service and set up the large organization known by the acronym SAVAK in 1957 to strengthen his regime by placing political opponents under surveillance and repress dissident movements.

According to Iranian political historian Ervand Abrahamian, after this attack SAVAK interrogators were sent abroad for “scientific training to prevent unwanted deaths from ‘brute force.’ Brute force was supplemented with the bastinado; sleep deprivation; extensive solitary confinement; glaring searchlights; standing in one place for hours on end; nail extractions; snakes (favored for use with women); electrical shocks with cattle prods, often into the rectum; cigarette burns; sitting on hot grills; acid dripped into nostrils; near-drownings; mock executions; and an electric chair with a large metal mask to muffle screams while amplifying them for the victim. This latter contraption was dubbed the Apollo—an allusion to the American space capsules. Prisoners were also humiliated by being raped, urinated on, and forced to stand naked.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1543798/US-funds-terror-groups-to-sow-chaos-in-Iran.html

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-thomson/the-cias-role-in-iranian_b_220217.html

Regardless, Rustmann and Lenczowski say, the CIA may now help set Tehran’s smoldering tinder ablaze by supplying the opposition factions with money, intel, press placement, and weapons–perhaps the most potent of which may be BlackBerrys.

“What we could do immediately is essentially manipulate Iranian media, especially the media that serves the Iranian diaspora,” says the former CIA operations officer who goes by–and wrote an espionage memoir under–the pseudonym Ishmael Jones. “The internet-driven communication between Iranians worldwide and those in Iran is frenetic.”

“The CIA already has a cooperative program in place with [certain American publications],” he adds. “Reporters from [those publications] meet regularly with the top CIA officials–not a conspiracy hatched in a smoke-filled room, but the natural result of reporters working hard to develop top-level sources within the CIA. Just switching [those reporters] for journalists who serve the Iranian diaspora would do the trick. These journalists will be eager to [cooperate].

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

Written in 1954 by one of the coup’s chief planners, the history details how United States and British officials plotted the military coup that returned the shah of Iran to power and toppled Iran’s elected prime minister, an ardent nationalist.

The document shows that:

- Britain, fearful of Iran’s plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.

- The C.I.A. and S.I.S., the British intelligence service, handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and covertly funneled $5 million to General Zahedi’s regime two days after the coup prevailed.

- Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric’s home in a campaign to turn the country’s Islamic religious community against Mossadegh’s government.

- The shah’s cowardice nearly killed the C.I.A. operation. Fearful of risking his throne, the Shah repeatedly refused to sign C.I.A.-written royal decrees to change the government. The agency arranged for the shah’s twin sister, Princess Ashraf Pahlevi, and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the father of the Desert Storm commander, to act as intermediaries to try to keep him from wilting under pressure. He still fled the country just before the coup succeeded.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/#documents

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/appendix%20B.pdf

 

 

http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/norwegian-state-radio-initiates-public-debate-on-911-truth/

WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT

by Niels Harrit, May/June 09

It has been suggested, that the red/grey chips discovered in the dust from the WTC collapse catastrophe1 could originate from rust-inhibiting paint (primer paint) applied to the steel beams in the towers. This letter compares the elemental composition and the thermal stability of the two materials based on the description of the protective paint in the NIST report and observations on the red/grey chips.

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE PRIMER PAINT

The primer paint applied to the steel beams of WTC is described and characterized in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D2.

The primer paint is red/orange and was originally applied in order to protect the steel against corrosion.

Examples of typical beams are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Figure 1. M2-C2M (WTC 1, Col.130, Fl 98) from NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D.<sup>1</sup>

Figure 1
 M2-C2M (WTC 1, Col.130, Fl 98)
from NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D2.

PP_Harrit_Figure_2

Figure 2
Perimeter columns in WTC towers from NIST.

The color is due to the pigments in the paint. Iron oxide is red and zinc chromate (”zinc yellow”) is – well – bright lemon yellow (Figure 3).

Table-D1

Figure 3
Composition of primer paint from NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D2.

Since the ”vehicle” is obviously fluid, the values for the ingredients in it must refer to the paint before application in w/w percentage.

Even though the composition of the Tnemec pigment is proprietary, the content of this component can be obtained from the Material Safety Data Sheet, from which the pertinent information is reproduced in Figure 4:

PP_Harrit_Figure_4

Figure 4
Extract from Material Safety Data Sheet for Tnemec pigment3.

Talc is magnesium silicate hydroxide, Mg3Si4O10(OH)2.

The content of calcium silicates and aluminates is inexact, and that the relative contribution of aluminates is not specified.

Since the Tnemec pigment contributed 33.7 % to the wet primer paint, the content of these two ingredients and the solvent in the wet primer paint was:

Talc Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 7 – 10 %
Calcium silicates or aluminates 2 – 3.3 %
Mineral spirits: 7.6 %

 

After application, the paint was baked at 120 °C. In this process all volatile ingredients evaporate. Thinners (Figure 3) and mineral spirits (from the Tnemec pigment) amount to (32.3 + 7.6) 40 %. If we subtract these from the w/w composition percentages given above, we get a rough estimate of the composition of the hardened paint.

That is, by dividing by 0.6 we get the following values for the decisive ingredients of the hardened paint (dismissing the trivial elements iron, silicon, carbon and oxygen):

Component Composition in wet paint Composition in dry paint
Zinc chromate (ZnCrO4) 20.3 % 34 %
Talc (Mg3Si4O10(OH)2) 7 – 10 % 12 – 17 %
Calcium silicates or aluminates 2 – 3.3 % 3.3 – 5.5 %

Table 1
Pertinent components of primer paint corrected for solvent evaporation.

COMPARISON WITH THE COMPOSITION OF THE RED/GRAY CHIPS

The elemental composition of the red/gray chips was obtained by means of X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (XEDS) in the SEM mode1. Before measurement, the chips were broken (with one exception to be discussed below) in order to secure a fresh uncontaminated surface from which the SEM XEDS was obtained. NONE of these SEM XEDS spectra, taken from four independently collected samples, showed signals from either zinc, chromium or magnesium in intensities significantly above the baseline noise. See the right panel of Figure 5 below in which the intensity scale is expanded. Strong signals from these three elements could be expected from the primer paint according to Table 1.

 XEDS spectra from fresh surfaces of red phase of red/gray chips. Four different samples are shown.<sup>2</sup>

Figure 7 in Harrit et al.1, showing the four different samples investigated.

 

The same spectrum as in frame (a) with intensity (vertical) and horizontal scales expanded. Minute signals in level with the noise are observed from sulfur, calcium, chromium and strontium.

The same spectrum as in frame (a) with intensity (vertical) and horizontal scales expanded. Minute signals in level with the noise are observed from sulfur, calcium, chromium and strontium.

 

Figure 5
SEM XEDS (beam energy 20 keV) spectra from fresh surfaces of red phase of red/gray chips.

In one experiment the chips were to be soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and could not – for good reasons – be broken before. The resulting XEDS of this chip (Figure 6, below) displays tiny blips indicating the presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very well could have been from the primer paint(!).

PP_Harrit_Figure_6

Figure 6

SEM XEDS (beam energy 20 keV) from unbroken chip before soaking in MEK. The calcium and sulfur are likely to originate from contamination with wallboard material (gypsum, calcium sulfate). The signals from zinc and chromium could be from surface contamination with primer paint.

Magnesium was never observed, which is another element characteristic of the primer paint (Table 1).

It should also be noticed, that the only possible source of aluminum in the primer paint is the rather vague reference to ”calcium silicates or aluminates” in 3.3 – 5.5 % presence. Without attempting any quantitative estimates (not a trivial matter in XEDS), it is still very hard to accept this component as the source of the bright-and-clear signals for aluminum from the red phase of the red/gray chips.

THERMAL STABILITY OF PRIMER PAINT

NIST was interested in the thermal response of the primer paint since examination of the condition on the recovered steel beams could be indicative of the temperatures they had been exposed to.

NIST carried out temperature studies on selected beams and made the following observations2. The paint is unaffected to temperatures up to 250 °C (Figure 7a). At higher temperatures the paint starts showing ”mud-cracks” as they can be seen in Figure 7b (left). This fracture is due to the different expansion coefficients of the steel and the paint. It gets worse at 650 °C (Figure 7, right) at which temperature black ”scales” (layers) begin to form between the paint and the steel (Figure 8). NIST took the samples beyond 800 °C at which temperature the scale formation and peeling off of the paint from the steel was prevailing. One may hypothesize that formation of the black scales is due to charring of the organic binder.

Primer paint on exterior WTC column at temperatures below 250 °C (panel a) and beyond (panel b).

Primer paint on exterior WTC column at temperatures below 250 °C (panel a) and beyond (panel b).

Exposure of primer paint on steel to 650 C for 1 hr.

Exposure of primer paint on steel to 650 °C for 1 hr.

Figure 7

pp_Harrit_FIGURE-8-new

Figure 8
From NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D2 showing formation of a black layer under the primer paint at temperatures beyond 650 °C.

Notice, that the primer paint – being basically a ceramic material – is chemically stable at temperatures up to 800 °C.

COMPARISON WITH THERMAL STABILITY OF RED/GRAY CHIPS

In contrast to the primer paint, the red/gray chips react violently, igniting in the neighbourhood of 430 °C. The reaction must produce temperatures no less than ca. 1500 °C, since the residues of molten iron are clearly seen in the optical microscope (Figure 9).

PP_Harrit_Figure_10

Figure 9

Optical microscope picture of red/gray chip after reaction in a DSC instrument1.

CONCLUSION

The properties of the primer paint and the red/gray chips are inconsistent.

The red/gray chips cannot be the primer paint as it is characterized by NIST.

REFERENCES

(1) Harrit, N.; Farrer, J.; Jones, S. E.; Ryan, K.; Legge, F.; Farnsworth, D.; Roberts, G.; Gourley, J.; Larsen, B.
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust From the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. The Chemical Physics Open Journal 2009, 2, 7-31.
(2) NIST. NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. 2005. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3C%20Appxs.pdf
(3) http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040525163309716

“I fear that if the underlying issues of 9-11 truth are not demanded, that Iraq may be but a flame on an ocean of gasoline that may be used to ignite war after war after war. We cannot, as a peace & justice movement only address the flames. We must look at the fuel being used to justify the flames of war and repression at home and abroad. We must look deeply at the events leading up to, on and since 9-11. We must demand full 9-11 truth.”

- Ed Asner

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/43

October 6, 2008

To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to thank Richard Gage, AIA and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for presenting the scientific facts behind the unprecedented destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7. AE911Truth presents solid research that contradicts the official story of the building’s destruction with the overwhelming evidence of explosive controlled demolition.

An accurate understanding of history is required to make good decisions in the future. Over and over again, history has shown that the first public perceptions of historical events are not always correct. I, along with millions of others, have serious questions about our country’s recent history about 9/11.

I have signed the AE911Truth.org petition calling for an unbiased investigation of the “collapses” of these three high-rise buildings. I encourage everyone to do the same, and also become a Sustaining Member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Sincerely,

Edward Asner

http://animatedfilms.suite101.com/article.cfm/ed_asner_cast_in_up

“Despite the show being in the A.C. Nielson Top Ten in its last year, CBS decided to cancel Lou Grant in March of 1982. Asner maintained that CBS’ decision was a ‘punishment’ for Asner’s outspoken liberal views on many topics. Actor Howard Hesseman, who had helped Asner promote a medical aid package for El Salvador, found his equally popular show W.K.R.P. in Cincinnati canceled the same day Lou Grant was tossed.”

http://www.nyccan.org/