• 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.
aggle-rithm said:
Yes, but can't we do a play-by-play while it's dying?

It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Horrifying, but spellbinding at the same time.
Click to expand...

I agree....I have to admit I keep coming back to at least view the thread, it serves a guilty pleasure I guess. Seriously let's think about it for a second, if dusty is accredited as she claims to be, this is like watching career suicide.
 
alienentity said:
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'.
Click to expand...

I already said that some of the studies refer to the heterogeneity, but gloss it over.

And none of them talk about the sort of heterogeneity that I have observed with my samples. The two entirely different types of dust? Nobody's really talked about that.
 
Do any of the studies prove that DEW devices of this type and scale exist beyond your own speculation?

(hint: "no")
 
WTC Dust said:
I already said that some of the studies refer to the heterogeneity, but gloss it over.

And none of them talk about the sort of heterogeneity that I have observed with my samples. The two entirely different types of dust? Nobody's really talked about that.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, as your dust is not a known sample, nor is it considered valid, as it was not collected untill sometime in 2009.

Invalid sample. End of story.
 
djlunacee said:
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.
Click to expand...

Jammonious is very clever and a great writer. He has done so much better than you all. Nobody touched him. I read that entire thread and was pleased to see that he had made so much progress with SAIC and ARA. Most of the comments directed at him were the sneering type, and not one of you offered anything like a proper debunking.

With me, it's different. I'm not a serious writer. I play the clown, but I'm damn smart. I create hoaxes and scandals for fun and for a purpose. I took all my clothes off on top of a bus stop on Oxford Street in downtown London, not for pay or a thrill, but to advertise the fact that Colin Davies was in prison for a crime that didn't merit jail time.

I met Boy George, yes, THE Boy George, when I was doing my thing in London, and he said to me, "You're mad!" Now if Boy George says that you are mad, that really means something.

On 9/11 I was running for elected office in New York City on the Marijuana Reform Party ballot. Even with all the chaos and fear associated with the attacks, 17,000+ New Yorkers still voted for me.

All of this can be googled. You can use this in an attempt to smear me, but it won't work because it shows exactly the type of person I am and the lengths I will go to do the job that requires doing.

Did I "hide" this by calling myself WTC Dust and waiting for thousands of replies before I identified myself? Yeah, but I only hid it from lazy people who aren't willing to read a lot, which is most people. Am I "hiding" my data by only showing you the tiniest bit a little at a time? No. I am presenting you the exact data which proves my point.

I have discovered WTC dust. This dust is multitypical. Some of this dust is a magnetic foam. Most of it isn't a magnetic foam, and instead corresponds to the commonly described dust from the WTC. Magnetic WTC foam disproves an airplane attack, because nothing about an airplane crash produces magnetic foam.

There. I'm not hiding anything. This is exactly the message I've been trying to tell JREFers.
 
leftysergeant said:
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.
Click to expand...

If it appeared to be welding dust, I would agree with you. Welding doesn't produce magnetic foam.
 
aggle-rithm said:
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.
Click to expand...

You...are telling...me about science? OK.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Just out of curiosity:

Did you use emoticons in your doctoral dissertation?
Click to expand...

You bring up a very good point, namely, the difference between an internet post and a doctoral dissertation.

I played the clown as much as possible even in graduate school. I was completely unlike any of the other graduate students, and I was well loved and wildly hated by some, as is the case with goofballs like me.

My PhD advisor enjoyed the heck out of me, and even allowed me to title my thesis, "The Two State Model of Receptor Activation: The Agonist and the Efficacy". You can probably google that, too.

I don't do things the "right" way if that way includes a somber attitude. It's time people started loosening up about 9/11 and getting rid of their anger. If you think Arabs did it, then your anger is entirely misplaced.

It's time for our scars to heal, and the truth will be instrumental in that. It's time for a new story, one that doesn't include freedom of speech zones and taking your shoes off at the airport. It's time to be goofy about 9/11. Or is it still too soon for you?
 
WTC Dust said:
With me, it's different. I'm not a serious writer. I play the clown, but I'm damn smart. I create hoaxes and scandals for fun and for a purpose. I took all my clothes off on top of a bus stop on Oxford Street in downtown London, not for pay or a thrill, but to advertise the fact that Colin Davies was in prison for a crime that didn't merit jail time.

.
Click to expand...


Why are people responding to this "performance"?

Are you a failed actor WTC Dust?
 
WildCat said:
What schools were those?
Click to expand...

B.A. Biology, Washington University in Saint Louis, 1992
Ph.D. Biomedical Sciences, University of Texas Houston, 1999
Professional Certificate in Education, Pace University, NYC, 2010
 
WTC Dust said:
Jammonious is very clever and a great writer. He has done so much better than you all. Nobody touched him. I read that entire thread...
Click to expand...
I guess I'm thinking of a different thread.

I create hoaxes
Click to expand...
You don't say?

I took all my clothes off on top of a bus stop on Oxford Street in downtown London, not for pay or a thrill, but to advertise the fact that Colin Davies was in prison for a crime that didn't merit jail time.
Click to expand...
How very daring. Did it achieve anything?

I met Boy George, yes, THE Boy George, when I was doing my thing in London, and he said to me, "You're mad!" Now if Boy George says that you are mad, that really means something.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Unfortunately I think it only means he thinks you're an even bigger attention-seeker than he is.
 
Architect said:
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.
Click to expand...

Holmgren wrote some genius stuff, and WebFairy sorta gets things quicker than other people. I don't like either person, but they have contributed to the knowledge base.
 
Architect said:
Do any of the studies prove that DEW devices of this type and scale exist beyond your own speculation?

(hint: "no")
Click to expand...

Why is it so hard for you to remember that DEW is not my theory? It's Dr. Judy Wood's theory.

What I'm out to show is that the WTC was turned into metallic dust.
 
triforcharity said:
It doesn't matter, as your dust is not a known sample, nor is it considered valid, as it was not collected untill sometime in 2009.

Invalid sample. End of story.
Click to expand...

Why, specifically, does the late collection of this sample invalidate it? If you give a good reason, I will accept it.

I just don't see how any length of time sitting around will generate metallic foam.

Also, samples that are similar to mine are already represented in the literature.
 
WTC Dust said:
If it appeared to be welding dust, I would agree with you. Welding doesn't produce magnetic foam.
Click to expand...

Welding fume would stick to the foam. If it is in an environment where it would be exposed to rain or fog, it would form a suface film. A foam would absorb dissolved salts rather deeply.

Eight years is long enough for a foam to soak up all sorts of surface contaminents.
 
WTC Dust said:
I already said that some of the studies refer to the heterogeneity, but gloss it over.

And none of them talk about the sort of heterogeneity that I have observed with my samples. The two entirely different types of dust? Nobody's really talked about that.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you keep clinging to the notion that the supposed heterogeneity of your dust somehow will change the mass composition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom