Did a little research on metallic foams, I see. It's an irregular open cell foam. And aluminum is neither dark nor magnetic.
And you would be right. She can't even say for sure this **** hasn't been around for fifty years.Ignoring the details, I'm saying she hasn't even shown any evidence for 'foam' at all, metallic or not.
Who trained you, a bunch of whackos from Richard Gage or Judy Wood? I studied about history since I was a little kid. You know nothing about true research girl!
What evidence do I have to counter you? You're not a metallurgist!
You mean other Truthers who think like you, act like you, & say the same things as you?![]()
Ignoring the details, I'm saying she hasn't even shown any evidence for 'foam' at all, metallic or not.
Are there any truthers talking about heterogenous WTC dust? If so, I want to read what they say.
Well of course I did research on them, it's like you've never tried to do the same thing. Then why do you persist that you're a metallurgist when in reality you're a biologist?
There was alot of that stuff going on with them in 2006. Here it is in 2010 & 4 yrs. later we're talking about the same stupid ****. Do you see a problem here, WTC Dust? Go ahead & read on, but know this, they don't have any evidence to prove their (Truthers) claims.
I'm not a metallurgist, but I have studied metals when I was a student. I took many years of chemistry, which included qualitative analysis and quantitative techniques. And I got fantastic grades in chemistry, almost all A's, especially laboratory chemistry.
I only got B's in physics. Boo. Except for labs, where I mysteriously got A's. I think my chemistry knowledge must have helped.
I took many years of chemistry, which included qualitative analysis and quantitative techniques. And I got fantastic grades in chemistry, almost all A's, especially laboratory chemistry.

Did you actually pay attention to their claims, or did you write them off without closely examining them?
I doubt there are many scientific papers to which the phrase "except for the cigarette butts" could be added anywhere in the methods or results sections, and still retain any credibility.
"Pores within the arctic ice cores contain trapped samples of the earth's atmosphere, preserved unchanged for tens of thousands of years, except for the cigarette butts."
"The control cultures were incubated under identical conditions except for the cigarette butts."
Respectfully,
Myriad
I paid close attention to their claims & found out that they lacked the education that was provided them to do proper research. They failed to provide physical evidence of their claims. Like you're doing now, failing to provide physical evidence for your claims. Sorry, but that's how everyone around here views them, including you.
I have to suspect that my samples are contaminated: with cigarette debris.
I'm not worried about that, but it is a source of contamination.
If you think "something" happened to contaminate my samples, what would it be? Humidity, perhaps. Not rain or snow (because of the concrete roof). Rain doesn't fall on the little nook where I found the samples. Some cigarettes did, so I'll have to account for that in my discussion of them.
Cigarettes can't produce metallic foam, and neither can humidity or a plane crash.
I just want to find out what they were saying. I already know what your opinion of them is.
Something tells me you spent a little too much time on the marijuana "research".
![]()
My opinion goes beyond that. Look at my signature & follow the link to my blog, it tells everything about the Truthers.