I'm asking for a substantial comment that shows me you've actually considered the image.
Okay, it's a picture of unknown origin, taken on an unknown date, showing a pile of an unknown substance.
I would like to proceed, but I'm choosing my own next steps. First, the dust pic I already showed you. What do you think of it?
See above.
I don't see how this could possibly be true.
Words are easy to say. It's easy to lie with words. Not everyone is a liar, but you have to assume that anyone might be lying or making innocent misstatements all the time.
Compare this with physical evidence. It doesn't lie. I have discovered several different types of dust. I have documented that it is very likely World Trade Center dust. Since I have been studying the dust ever since the early days (remember Day 3 when I saw only a few tall pieces above a ten foot fence, but did see all those heavy fumes? remember in late December when the fumes were still going strong 100 days later?), obviously I have read and digested the available peer reviewed literature on the WTC dust, as well as reading the non-peer-reviewed work by Harrit, et. al.
Emphasis is mine.
So you don't even know if what you have there is dust from the WTC?
Any "research" based on this dust is dead in the water from the get go.
My major finding is that the vast majority of the peer reviewed literature describes the lighter colored dust, and that Harrit, et. al, have reported on the darker colored dust. The darker dust is metallic and has rust spots. The two types of dust I found reconcile the descrepancy between Harrit's results and the vast majority of the other work on the dust. For this reason alone, my finding is important and will make a difference.
No it won't, see response above.
Notice that I'm telling you the results, but I'm not actually showing you the data or giving you the methods? This is the way that I'm being stingy. Why should I share the details when you mock the results and the experimenter and actually pay no attention to the details that I have documented for you?
I want you to pay attention, first, to where I found the dust. If you can't do that, then you won't appreciate the rest of it.
You are not even telling us results. Showing data, methods and detail would be a way for you to get people to pay attention to you, that is except for a minor problem....see 2 posts up.
Fantastic. A real comment. From the picture it is impossible to tell the exact composition of the dust. But you can say things about the color and the placement of the dust. Why does it look burned to you?
What difference does it make? See 3 posts up.
And, I do not intend to prove that it is from 9/11, because nothing can ever be proved.
Of course you don't, and wrong. See 4 posts up.
But I can get close to proving it.
No, you can't. See 5 posts up.
I can give a good argument that it is, in fact, World Trade Center dust.
No, you can't. See 6 posts up.
The determined skeptic will never believe that it is WTC dust, but that's fine.
Probably the first thing you have said that is correct.
Oh, and see 7 posts up.
No, it does not. See 8 posts up.
I'm only out to test my theory, and people who are determined to knock down every theory about what destroyed the WTC except the official story are irrelevant to the process.
You are out to test a theory at a place where you think the people are irrelevant? Good work there.
Only the curious and only those who question what happened on 9/11 are going to be easy to convince that my story is true. I'm going for those people, first. The other people arrive at the scene with too much prejudgment and too many misconceptions.
So you just want to convince people who are easy to convince? So. why are you here again?
So you just want to convince them that your STORY is true, not that you "theory" and your "science" correct. Scientist.....riiiiigggghhhhttt.
Edited by LashL:
Removed breach of Rule 12 and Rule 0.
What happened on 9/11 was very strange. No traditional explanation has accounted for the destruction seen, especially not airplane crashes.
Wrong.
You can, in fact, see two different colors of the stuff I claim is WTC dust on data slide two.
So what. See 12 posts up.
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?
You have a very odd definition of the word data. Dr. Wood has no data.
No it doesn't. See 13 posts up. As to what I think of the picture, see my very first response in this post.
