WTC dust

[332nd]

The truth about my intentions is that I came here to test my theory. I have not published this, yet. You all might see that as potentially exciting.

I don't care how other researchers operate.I was always very slow to publish, I admit. Is it a failing on my part? Yes, in an atmosphere that emphasizes "publish or perish". It's not my style. Can you tell?

Dr. Wood is generous with her data. I'm stingy. I don't like to throw it all out there at once, and I am in the middle of formulating my strategy for presenting my findings. I have come to JREF for a debunking of my work, not that of Judy Wood.

And my work starts with where I found the dust. So what do you think of the pic?

Really? What else have you published?

 

[Pantaz]

The truth about my intentions is that I came here to test my theory. I have not published this, yet. You all might see that as potentially exciting.

I don't care how other researchers operate. I was always very slow to publish, I admit. ...

What have you published previously?

 

[WTC Dust]

Ok, good!

​

I'd really love to see what you've determined about the material's composition.

Really? You and other people are really, really asking about the composition of the material.

What if I told you it was peanut butter? You'd say I was insane, but then again, many of you have already called me insane, so I have nothing to fear now, right? ;-)

The dust isn't peanut butter. It isn't even one type of dust. I keep telling you all that, but you're not picking up on it. I keep telling you that some of it is metallic, and I have much more to say and to show you, but until a certain mass of people appear to be paying attention, I'm not going to be able to proceed very fast.

 

[WTC Dust]

Wonderful, it is indeed dust.

What is the composition of your dust?

Wow! You really can't wait to hear what I say about it, can you?

What if I told you that some of it was metallic? Would you call me as insane as if I were to have told you that some of it was peanut butter?

 

[excaza]

It isn't even one type of dust.

You say that like it should mean something.

What is the mass composition of your dust?

 

[excaza]

Wow! You really can't wait to hear what I say about it, can you?

What if I told you that some of it was metallic? Would you call me as insane as if I were to have told you that some of it was peanut butter?

You have a mass spectrograph results showing that you have peanut butter?

 

[WTC Dust]

K. How do you know steel is in the dust?

Be patient. I have my evidence. But I'm stingy. I want to take you through it step by step until I am convinced you actually understand what I want you to know about my work.

 

[excaza]

Be patient. I have my evidence. But I'm stingy. I want to take you through it step by step until I am convinced you actually understand what I want you to know about my work.

There is no step by step. It's:

a.) I have this unknown material
b.) I tested the material in a mass spectrometer and these are these elements present: _______

It's called science. It takes less than 5 minutes.

 

[WTC Dust]

What have you published previously?

You want my curriculum vitae? I have written several first author papers, and been second or third authors on a few more. I have invented several entirely new scientific methods, which I used in my Ph.D. work and industry. I have written several books, but none of them are published.

Whatever. I'm a crap publisher. Fine. I don't publish profusely, but I'm about to publish. That should be interesting to you. You're hearing stuff that literally no one else who isn't reading this forum is hearing.

 

[332nd]

Be patient. I have my evidence. But I'm stingy. I want to take you through it step by step until I am convinced you actually understand what I want you to know about my work.

I understand your work and you're wrong. The pic you posted proves it. (did you think there was no one here who worked in a machine shop?)

 

[LashL]

But the WTC wasn't vaporized, it was dustified! How you might ask? By using DEW.

Sure, but anyone claiming dustification or vaporization should read that and comment upon it. I doubt that wonder if they will.

 

[WTC Dust]

There is no step by step. It's:

a.) I have this unknown material
b.) I tested the material in a mass spectrometer and these are these elements present: _______

It's called science. It takes less than 5 minutes.

You really think that it is as simple as the elements present in the sample? What about the macroscopic structure of the dust? What about the heterogeneity of the dust?

What if I told you that I discovered iron in the dust? Would you say I was insane? It's a real question. I think you all are trying to find out if I found iron in the dust, or other evidence that steel was turned into dust. And I did. But you'll have to pay attention to me step by step, because I already know what I have. I'm busy trying to see if I made a mistake, and I'm showing you things at my own, slow pace.

I'd like to go faster, but you all don't seem to be focusing sufficently on the evidence at hand. You all want to jump to the composition. I've told you it was formerly steel dust over and over again. I'm trying to present my scientific argument to you all.

 

[excaza]

You really think that it is as simple as the elements present in the sample?

It's infinitely more helpful than some random picture.

What is the mass composition of your dust?

What about the macroscopic structure of the dust?

What about it? Why is it "strange"? Quantitatively speaking. I don't care if you think it looks strange.

What about the heterogeneity of the dust?

Without a mass composition, how are we supposed to comment on its heterogeneity (which, btw, if you want all the steel to be dust, your sample should be homogeneous)? Using your picture? No thanks.

 

[WTC Dust]

I understand your work and you're wrong. The pic you posted proves it. (did you think there was no one here who worked in a machine shop?)

Oh! Tell me how my pic proves me wrong? Machine shop? Go ahead.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Really? You and other people are really, really asking about the composition of the material.

What if I told you it was peanut butter? You'd say I was insane, but then again, many of you have already called me insane, so I have nothing to fear now, right? ;-)

The dust isn't peanut butter. It isn't even one type of dust. I keep telling you all that, but you're not picking up on it. I keep telling you that some of it is metallic, and I have much more to say and to show you, but until a certain mass of people appear to be paying attention, I'm not going to be able to proceed very fast.

Asking for it's composition doesn't mean we presume it's homogenous. What we're asking for is what it's made of. Sure, we'll understand if it contains more than one substance, but the point is: What is it made out of? You mentioned that "some of it is metallic", but that's not helpful. Which metal? Or if it's not elemental, which alloy?

You see, you keep presenting this dust as though it's something of importance, yet you don't go beyond the broadest, most vague characterizations of it. That doesn't tell anyone anything of substance, and that's why we ask you for the composition. It's a question that you should expect would be asked of you. If you're going to present it, you should explain it.

And forget having "a certain mass of people appear to be paying attention". You are the one choosing to focus on trivial, irrelevent minituae. If you compose a comment of substance on the dust - for example, something more descriptive regarding what it's made of- then you will get attention. But until then, you're making nothing but small talk.

It's up to you to make the thread substantive. So why don't you do it by explaining what you found out about the dust? What's it made of? What have you discovered about it? Post that, and the tenor of the thread will change.

 

[dtugg]

You really think that it is as simple as the elements present in the sample? What about the macroscopic structure of the dust? What about the heterogeneity of the dust?

What if I told you that I discovered iron in the dust? Would you say I was insane? It's a real question. I think you all are trying to find out if I found iron in the dust, or other evidence that steel was turned into dust. And I did. But you'll have to pay attention to me step by step, because I already know what I have. I'm busy trying to see if I made a mistake, and I'm showing you things at my own, slow pace.

I'd like to go faster, but you all don't seem to be focusing sufficently on the evidence at hand. You all want to jump to the composition. I've told you it was formerly steel dust over and over again. I'm trying to present my scientific argument to you all.

Stop lying. You have conducted no scientific anaylsis of the dust at all. You have no evidence whatsoever that so much as a kg of steel got turned to dust. If you did, you would have presented it by now. You are fooling nobody, liar.

 

[332nd]

Oh! Tell me how my pic proves me wrong? Machine shop? Go ahead.

Simple. There's no metal in the dust.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The truth about my intentions is that I came here to test my theory. I have not published this, yet. You all might see that as potentially exciting.

Potentially, yes, but in real life it's just been excruciatingly funny, and the joke has begun to pall.

I don't care how other researchers operate. I was always very slow to publish, I admit. Is it a failing on my part? Yes, in an atmosphere that emphasizes "publish or perish". It's not my style. Can you tell?

Yes.

What if I told you it was peanut butter?

That would not change my opinion of you in any way.

The dust isn't peanut butter.

Excellent! Although several possibilities have not yet been eliminated, you are making progress.

You want my curriculum vitae? I have written several first author papers, and been second or third authors on a few more. I have invented several entirely new scientific methods, which I used in my Ph.D. work and industry. I have written several books, but none of them are published.

Cool story, bro'.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You really think that it is as simple as the elements present in the sample? What about the macroscopic structure of the dust? What about the heterogeneity of the dust?

Yes, that information would be terrific as well.

What if I told you that I discovered iron in the dust? Would you say I was insane? It's a real question. I think you all are trying to find out if I found iron in the dust, or other evidence that steel was turned into dust. And I did.

Excellent. Now we're getting somewhere. What method did you employ to determine if iron was present? Was it a type of spectroscopy? Or was it simply by testing for a bulk property, such as magnetic attraction?

But you'll have to pay attention to me step by step, because I already know what I have. I'm busy trying to see if I made a mistake, and I'm showing you things at my own, slow pace.

So, are you saying that you've already determined the composition of the substance, or that you're in process of confirming the composition of the substance?

I'd like to go faster, but you all don't seem to be focusing sufficently on the evidence at hand. You all want to jump to the composition. I've told you it was formerly steel dust over and over again. I'm trying to present my scientific argument to you all.

Yes, but we're trying to determine how you determined it was steel dust. And what fraction of it is indeed steel, what is another substance, etc. You are the one who came here to discuss the dust, but when asked for specifics about it, you suddenly defer. That is why you're getting these questions.

You're not building hype here, you're presenting a discovery. So either present it already, or tell us that your work is incomplete and suggest an initial timeframe for when you expect to have results. And while you're at it, it's perhaps best to refrain from commenting until your work is completed, since we all know how much of a timesuck this forum can be. If you concentrate on that work rather than responding to posts here, you can get it done faster. We'll wait.

 

[aggle-rithm]

You want my curriculum vitae? I have written several first author papers, and been second or third authors on a few more. I have invented several entirely new scientific methods, which I used in my Ph.D. work and industry. I have written several books, but none of them are published.

Whatever. I'm a crap publisher. Fine. I don't publish profusely, but I'm about to publish. That should be interesting to you. You're hearing stuff that literally no one else who isn't reading this forum is hearing.

Heh, heh!

Yeah, you're just yanking our chains.