• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC dust

Status
Not open for further replies.
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Bolding's mine:
Click to expand...

You can't be saying sublimation is an imaginary process. Are you?

Sublimation is the transition of a substance from the solid phase to the gas phase without passing through an intermediate liquid phase.

Two seconds of wiki-searching...!
 
Sabrina said:
You've stated earlier in this thread that you discovered it a year ago. In other words, EIGHT YEARS AFTER the events of 9/11.

The possibility of that dust sample being uncontaminated after that long is so infinitesimally miniscule that it's utterly absurd. As is the possibility of it actually BEING dust from the destruction of the WTC. I call BS.
Click to expand...

What do you exactly mean by "uncontaminated"? Most of the studies on the WTC dust were performed on samples that were scooped up off of the ground. Do you think those samples were uncontaminated?

Contamination is an issue. The long time the dust was sitting where it was sitting is an issue. These things must be accounted for along with my results. They don't invalidate my results, but they must be accounted for.

Example: I found some cigarette butts somebody must have thrown down the hole from the roof. Establishing this as a source of possible contamination is a good thing. Otherwise, if I found tobacco in the dust and took that data seriously, I might have to start building a model of WTC destruction that included tobacco fires or cigarette butt fires. But since I noted the contamination, I will avoid making such silly mistakes.

What about the length of time the dust was sitting there? Any analysis must include this data point. Does sitting around a long time turn WTC dust into foam? Perhaps, but you'll have to suggest a mechanism by which this can happen.
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
After 8 yrs. it would be contaminated!
Click to expand...

After one minute, all the samples that landed on the ground were contaminated. My samples cannot be disqualified on the basis of contamination, unless you also disqualify all the other research performed on dust that was scooped up from where it landed.

That is to say, all the other research on the dust has the same problem.
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Ok, then you try to turn solid steel into dust without it going through the liquid & gas phase. I'm just simply helping her mind improve apon reality here.

To WTC Dust: I didn't live around my grand father & father, who were steel workers btw, to know this.
Click to expand...

That your family was involved in steelwork means that you know very well how heavy metals can be heated until they are melted.

We didn't see very much (or any) melted steel at Ground Zero, so you must admit that melting heavy metals did not play a role in the destruction of the WTC towers.

I'm telling you, that based on the work of Dr. Judy Wood, the best theory about what actually did destroy the WTC is directed energy weapons. This is exotic technology. It might not be right, although I think it is.

Even if Dr. Wood is wrong about DEW, that doesn't change the fact that the WTC was largely turned into dust. Something did this, and it wasn't heat.
 
phiwum said:
Regarding when the photos were taken...


I wonder why you didn't say this when people asked earlier. Remember back when you mentioned them being uploaded to an IPad? Remember how folks said that they must've been taken recently and you demurred, saying that they needn't have been uploaded as soon as they were taken?

And now you admit that they were indeed taken at least eight years after the event.

I'm beginning to see why you keep so much data secret, but stinginess has less to do with it than intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Uh, I'm not hiding a darn thing. I only put up part of my data to save some candy for the party, ya know.
 
BasqueArch said:
My bold




Oops bet she didn't know that. Time for the dust fairy to remove some of those iron shavings from the samples. (But how much and still be believable ?)
Click to expand...

The heterogeneity of the dust is my original contribution to the field. It's my main discovery!

The heterogeneity of the dust is why all the mass compositions are out of whack in the published papers. The verbally claim that the dust is uniform, but their data doesn't say the same thing!

:D
 
WTC Dust said:
The heterogeneity of the dust is my original contribution to the field. It's my main discovery!

The heterogeneity of the dust is why all the mass compositions are out of whack in the published papers. The verbally claim that the dust is uniform, but their data doesn't say the same thing!

:D
Click to expand...

PLease, quote from the USGS publication in support of your claim. It's very glib to make vague claims and vague criticisms.
Oh forget it, I'll quote them for you 'The composition of samples collected in the WTC area, as indicated by spectroscopy, XRD, SEM, and from the visual examination during splitting of the samples, show similarities, yet each sample shows differences (ie. heterogeneity) Thus, while the samples appear to be a "grey dust", the data indicate the dust was not well mixed. The sample analyses and the AVIRIS mapping results agree in this regard.'

So in fact USGS beat you to your 'new' theory by clearly stating that the samples are not all uniform, meaning they are not homogeneous but in fact heterogeneous.
Your dissembling is not even good; it's transparent flimflam. To your phony claim 'heterogeneity of the dust is my original contribution to the field' I say 'baloney'.
 
Last edited:
We have already determined that this Dr.(snicker)Blevins' argument has no merit, based on a number of factors, the most glaring being her incompetence. It has been 60 pages already and not one piece of data, no 2 blurry pictures doesn't count as data, sorry dusty. The time has come to move on. She has proven herself to be little more than a troll, who has no understanding of physics, chemistry, or engineering. We have all seen this before, does anyone recall that we have been down this road with Jammonious? Please folks, I beg you let it die.
 
Over eight years, the dust would have, by a very mundane process, have come to contain a higher proportion of iron than it originally had, if it were from anywhere near the WTC site.

The air was just full of the smoke from burning organic materials which would have include tons of carbonless self-duplicating forms. Right there you have a source of iron-rich sphereules.

And let's not forget the welding fume. The thermal lances used to cut large steel members burn iron, creating a yellow smoke (It has a particularly acrid smell, from what I have witnessed working as a laborer and fire guard in a small shipyard here in Tacoma.)

There has, since the attacks, been a very large steel-framed building erected in the area. More welding fume. The stuff gets everywhere in NYC.
 
8 years and she expects this sample to still remain valid?

Whoever gave her that degree, should be fired. They aren't qualified to flip burgers at McDonalds.
 
WTC Dust said:
After one minute, all the samples that landed on the ground were contaminated. My samples cannot be disqualified on the basis of contamination, unless you also disqualify all the other research performed on dust that was scooped up from where it landed.

That is to say, all the other research on the dust has the same problem.
Click to expand...

In science, you don't get a leap of faith because there is no good evidence available.

Bad evidence doesn't get a pass just because it wouldn't be "fair" otherwise.

Science is a cruel mistress. If you haven't figured that out by now, you really need to start over.
 
WTC Dust said:
The heterogeneity of the dust is my original contribution to the field. It's my main discovery!

The heterogeneity of the dust is why all the mass compositions are out of whack in the published papers. The verbally claim that the dust is uniform, but their data doesn't say the same thing!

:D
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity:

Did you use emoticons in your doctoral dissertation?
 
Sabrina said:
No comment on the "firemen being out of formation" nonsense I showed you up on? I'm disappointed.
Click to expand...

Any more than she answered on Tesla's oscillator being completely and utterly bunk....

But why expect to have a twoof to actually admit that they were wrong.
 
I stopped posting on this thread some time ago, when it because apparent that WTC Dust was no more a competent scientist (at least inasmuch as the collapse of WTC requires) than I was George Clooney. She has failed to provide any substantive analysis or evidence, and likewise has shown a disregard for process that I find incredible in anyone who claims to have a university-level education.

The question I have to ask, however, is why the heck the rest of you are arguing with her? It's crystal clear that the woo is sufficiently strong to resist reality, and likewise surely the pure humour value must have evaporated some 10 pages ago.

Leave Dusty, the web fairy, and ol Holmgren (if he appears) to their private fantasy. It's debunked and not woth any additonal effort.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom