WTC dust

[The Almond]

When I have a very good understanding of physics and of science in general, having earned almost every dollar I've ever earned in science laboratories or science classrooms, why not be open minded to what I'm saying?

I have spent my life as a scientist, starting when I took extra science classes in high school and won first place in science competitions, etc. I was accepted into medical school at age 17, accepted at Stanford, graduated valedictorian, graduated with a science degree on the honor rolls, earned a PhD early, completed a postdoctoral fellowship, industry experience, peer reviewed journal articles with my name as first author..............

With all due respect, you've got absolutely nothing on Linus Pauling. Dr. Pauling received 2 Nobel prizes, one in Physics, one in Chemistry. He was instrumental in the development of the understanding of chemical bonding. He was one of the most prolific, most cited and most respected physicists of the 20th century. That's Linus Pauling. He did more while on vacation that the two of us combined have done in our entire scientific careers so far.

Why am I bringing up Pauling? He thought that Vitamin C could cure cancer, prevent the common cold, and help children with brain injuries. In short, he was wrong. When other scientists looked at his research, they found the mistake. Pauling and his collaborators had goofed up the statistics and the controls for their experiments. Further attempts to replicate his results failed. Vitamin C does not prevent the common cold or cure cancer. But more importantly, we don't evaluate the effectiveness of Vitamin C simply based on who says it. The only thing that matters is what the replication of the experiments and the evaluation of the data showed.

To whit, Linus Pauling had two Nobel Prizes, and he was still wrong. I don't see any reason to accept your interpretation of the events of 9/11 over the interpretation of, say, a college student, just because you have a PhD.

Got something worth looking at? Publish it in Analytical Chemistry. Present it at the meeting of the American Chemical Society and clearly explain your sampling methods, tests, procedures, errors and controls. Explain your interpretations to experts in Engineering, Physics and Chemistry, and stop wasting your time trying to convince a bunch of keyboard jockeys and truther nutcases. This should have been your first step. Pronouncements on internet forums and crackpot letters to federal agencies are not methods used by honest scientists to present their data. In other words, put up or shut up. Even Linus Pauling published his data, after all.

 

[aggle-rithm]

When I have a very good understanding of physics and of science in general, having earned almost every dollar I've ever earned in science laboratories or science classrooms, why not be open minded to what I'm saying?

I have spent my life as a scientist, starting when I took extra science classes in high school and won first place in science competitions, etc. I was accepted into medical school at age 17, accepted at Stanford, graduated valedictorian, graduated with a science degree on the honor rolls, earned a PhD early, completed a postdoctoral fellowship, industry experience, peer reviewed journal articles with my name as first author..............

Wow. What the hell happened?

 

[jaydeehess]

Wow. What the hell happened?

I might offer some insight there a-r. I have been reading some of Dr.Babs' blog and it is quite the demonstration of 'confirmation bias'.

WTC Dust may well actually believe all that she has concluded and be completely unaware of how utterly tainted her conclusions are by her own desire to see confirmation of her prejudgement.

Quite telling of her confirmation bias, in the blog, is how she determines that Fetzer and S.Jones are part of the cover up.

 

[WTC Dust]

And here's the USS Sterett after she was hit by a kamikaze off Okinawa on April 9, 1945:

[qimg]http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/uss_sterett_kamikaze.jpg[/qimg]

Bear in mind that Japanes warplanes were particularly flimsy, even for that period. And they couldn't fly nearly as fast as a modern jet. And the sides of the USS Sterett were armored.

Of course, WRC Dust will ignore this post.

I'll bet the plane that crashed into that ship was itself damaged by the impact, wasn't it?

I don't know how many times I have to say this.

I AM NOT SAYING that an airplane can't damage steel if it crashes into it.
I AM SAYING that an airplane can't damage steel WITHOUT DAMAGING the plane itself.

If an airplane crashes into some steel beams, yeah, there will be damage to the steel beams, BUT there will also be damage to the plane.

Videos of 9:03AM do not show damage to the plane, therefore those videos do not depict a plane crashing into steel beams at the south face of WTC 2.

It's no good saying, "Yeah, but the plane parts continued in the same direction that the plane was flying and flew out the other side of the building," because you're forgetting what you're saying was a plane crashing into the south face of WTC 2. If it had been a plane crash, there would have been debris bouncing off the building.

No debris? No plane crash.

 

[WTC Dust]

Aren't most iron compounds either insoluble or Lewis acids?

Results are results. Add them all up and what do they mean?

 

[WTC Dust]

With all due respect, you've got absolutely nothing on Linus Pauling. Dr. Pauling received 2 Nobel prizes, one in Physics, one in Chemistry. He was instrumental in the development of the understanding of chemical bonding. He was one of the most prolific, most cited and most respected physicists of the 20th century. That's Linus Pauling. He did more while on vacation that the two of us combined have done in our entire scientific careers so far.

Why am I bringing up Pauling? He thought that Vitamin C could cure cancer, prevent the common cold, and help children with brain injuries. In short, he was wrong. When other scientists looked at his research, they found the mistake. Pauling and his collaborators had goofed up the statistics and the controls for their experiments. Further attempts to replicate his results failed. Vitamin C does not prevent the common cold or cure cancer. But more importantly, we don't evaluate the effectiveness of Vitamin C simply based on who says it. The only thing that matters is what the replication of the experiments and the evaluation of the data showed.

To whit, Linus Pauling had two Nobel Prizes, and he was still wrong. I don't see any reason to accept your interpretation of the events of 9/11 over the interpretation of, say, a college student, just because you have a PhD.

Got something worth looking at? Publish it in Analytical Chemistry. Present it at the meeting of the American Chemical Society and clearly explain your sampling methods, tests, procedures, errors and controls. Explain your interpretations to experts in Engineering, Physics and Chemistry, and stop wasting your time trying to convince a bunch of keyboard jockeys and truther nutcases. This should have been your first step. Pronouncements on internet forums and crackpot letters to federal agencies are not methods used by honest scientists to present their data. In other words, put up or shut up. Even Linus Pauling published his data, after all.

JREF isn't a peer reviewed journal. The purpose of me joining JREF was not to get traditional peer review. It was to check out what the zealot debunkers had to say.

 

[WTC Dust]

I might offer some insight there a-r. I have been reading some of Dr.Babs' blog and it is quite the demonstration of 'confirmation bias'.

WTC Dust may well actually believe all that she has concluded and be completely unaware of how utterly tainted her conclusions are by her own desire to see confirmation of her prejudgement.

Quite telling of her confirmation bias, in the blog, is how she determines that Fetzer and S.Jones are part of the cover up.

If you think scientists aren't biased, think again. It's not good to be biased before you come to some reliable conclusions, but after that? You bet scientists are biased. They are biased towards their own theories because they think their theories are better than those of other scientists.

It always cracks me up when non-scientists fail to address the scientific points of my work, but claim it isn't scientific. Listen up, it's not for you to tell me what is and is not science.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Videos of 9:03AM do not show damage to the plane, therefore those videos do not depict a plane crashing into steel beams at the south face of WTC 2.

You really elevate the whole idea that 'if it isn't on video it didn't happen' to a new level. You really don't believe the plane was shredded on impact just because you can't see inside the building? Sheeeeesh.

 

[leftysergeant]

Results are results. Add them all up and what do they mean?

That you have concrete evidence as to what it is or could not be, but not all the evidence you need. You have not ruled steel in, nor Portland cement, and thus Spray-on Fire Resistant Material (SFRM) out. The likelihood that it is SFRM is actually increased based on your pH reading.

You don't need to have a PhD to figure that out. Even a dyscalculic old hose dragger can figure that out.

 

[leftysergeant]

I'll bet the plane that crashed into that ship was itself damaged by the impact, wasn't it?

Well, freakin' DUH! It was utterly deformed on impact. But, like a .22 LR round hitting a car door, it still did not bounce off.

I don't know how many times I have to say this.

Videos of 9:03AM do not show damage to the plane, therefore those videos do not depict a plane crashing into steel beams at the south face of WTC 2.

In most cases, the plane was between the camera and the point at which it was in contact with the wall, thus hiding from the camera the fact that it was flattening out and breaking up as the perimeter columns began to fail. Once the columns failed, all further deformation of the aircraft took place inside the building.

It's no good saying, "Yeah, but the plane parts continued in the same direction that the plane was flying and flew out the other side of the building,"

Only the heaviest, densest parts continued throguh the building. Most came to a jarring stop against the core columns and floor slabs.

No debris? No plane crash.

Uterrly baseless assertion. Anybody who has ever fired a soft lead bullet into steel knows that it would not have bounced off.

 

[R.A.F.]

If it had been a plane crash, there would have been debris bouncing off the building.

How did you arrive at this conclusion?...what skills that you learned training as a pharmacist did you utilize that convinced you that you are correct?

 

[WTC Dust]

I have a new blog with the four videos I've made so far about 9/11 and an invitation to the seminar on December 1, 2010, at 9 Bleecker Street from 7PM-10PM.

http://wtcdust.blogspot.com/

 

[WTC Dust]

WTC Dust your pronouncement that plane debris would have bounced off the building is categorically rejected. Thank you for playing. There will be a lovely consolation prize waiting for you at the door.

Why are you saying parts of the plane wouldn't have bounced off the south face of WTC 2? Debris is a part of every collision, and the direction the debris flies is (on average) in the opposite direction of the travel path.

Look at any video of a real collision, and you'll notice the difference between it and the videos of 9:03AM.

 

[leftysergeant]

I almost forgot to ask, in the midst of laughing at the pH tests, whether you had measured the specific gravity of your samples. This is absolutely critical at this point.

 

[jaydeehess]

If you think scientists aren't biased, think again. It's not good to be biased before you come to some reliable conclusions, but after that? You bet scientists are biased. They are biased towards their own theories because they think their theories are better than those of other scientists.

It always cracks me up when non-scientists fail to address the scientific points of my work, but claim it isn't scientific. Listen up, it's not for you to tell me what is and is not science.

I know that scientists are biased but a good one tries very hard to work towards eliminating all tendancy towards it. In fact there is a good editorial on this in the Nov. 2010 issue of Scientific American. This is much easier in the hard sciences than in psychology or sociology. You have however have used subjective analysis ("strange fire" "odd smell"), not taken care to eliminate any possibility of sample contamination of the dust you collected and jumped on the bandwagon of an unproven DEW concept. Rather than trying to eliminate any contribution of your biases to your conclusion you have actually worked to include data sources that can easily do so.


All well and good of you to say that all the wee folk are buzzing about and wrong, but you still have not published, or attempted to publish, your findings concerning the WTC Dust in a peer reviewed journal. You have however posted your speculations on Fetzer and S.Jones and in those certainly non-technical musings your confirmation bias is showing to say the least.

You sit back and scoff at non-scientists comments about your work but are, it seems, perfectly content to garner those comments first before actually attempting to get a real review. Will you ever try to publish in a truly peer reviewed journal? (as suggested above) Is so when? If not then you can be content to choke on all of us keyboard jockeys commenting on your unproven work. It would certainly demonstrate that your true purpose is to blow your own horn where you can claim no one has the authority to question it, rather than risk doing so in an arena where all readers demonstrably are qualified to do so.

OTOH you have been asked specific question regarding your 'scientific' claims and you tend to ignore them and then say that non-scientists are ignoring your science. More confirmation bias at work.

 

[jaydeehess]

Why are you saying parts of the plane wouldn't have bounced off the south face of WTC 2? Debris is a part of every collision, and the direction the debris flies is (on average) in the opposite direction of the travel path.

Look at any video of a real collision, and you'll notice the difference between it and the videos of 9:03AM.

Really?
So since your own subjective analyses are valid here's a few observations of mine.
I have seen high speed videos of a lead bullet impacting steel and concrete and see no 'bounce off' debris. The bullet certainly mushrooms and fragments nothing bounces back in the other direction.


I have also seen a NASCAR auto hit the inner wall at 90 degrees and bounce,,,, up and over the (still intact)infield wall rather than back the way it came.

I have actually witnessed a car hit a brick wall and go through it. ALL of the car went through the wall and the only thing that ended up on the impact side of the wall were a few bricks that came off after the car had come to a stop on the other side. (not even the broken headlight glass)

Then there is the crash test done in 1984 in which a jetliner is deliberatly crashed into the ground to test a new fuel. There are steel cutters on the ground that shred the wings and although pieces do fly off as this happens the pieces end up on the side opposite the impact . They do NOT bounce backwards.
Not the best quality but its all I could find on short notice.
http://vodpod.com/watch/3368647-controlled-impact-demonstration-1984-aircraft-crash-test-using-amk-fuel

 

[WildCat]

I'll bet the plane that crashed into that ship was itself damaged by the impact, wasn't it?

I don't know how many times I have to say this.

I AM NOT SAYING that an airplane can't damage steel if it crashes into it.
I AM SAYING that an airplane can't damage steel WITHOUT DAMAGING the plane itself.

If an airplane crashes into some steel beams, yeah, there will be damage to the steel beams, BUT there will also be damage to the plane.

Videos of 9:03AM do not show damage to the plane, therefore those videos do not depict a plane crashing into steel beams at the south face of WTC 2.

It's no good saying, "Yeah, but the plane parts continued in the same direction that the plane was flying and flew out the other side of the building," because you're forgetting what you're saying was a plane crashing into the south face of WTC 2. If it had been a plane crash, there would have been debris bouncing off the building.

No debris? No plane crash.

But there was debris...

 

[WildCat]

the scientific points of my work

Not only have you not raised any scientific points, you haven't shown any work either.

 

[beachnut]

... If an airplane crashes into some steel beams, yeah, there will be damage to the steel beams, BUT there will also be damage to the plane.

Using evidence and physics, we find flight 11 and flight 175 both impacted the WTC towers and each aircraft was destroyed. The planes were completely destroyed.

... Videos of 9:03AM do not show damage to the plane, therefore those videos do not depict a plane crashing into steel beams at the south face of WTC 2.

Video shows the destruction of the aircraft, crashing into the towers. Why make up false statements? Please explain why you deny the passengers and planes were destroyed on 911 when flight 11 and 175 crashed into the WTC, verified by RADAR, visual, DNA, and debris evidence.

... It's no good saying, "Yeah, but the plane parts continued in the same direction that the plane was flying and flew out the other side of the building," because you're forgetting what you're saying was a plane crashing into the south face of WTC 2. If it had been a plane crash, there would have been debris bouncing off the building.

You think the entire plane would bounce off the building? That is not what physics and science shows.

... No debris? No plane crash.

There was debris, there were two planes used as weapons by terrorists at the WTC towers.

Aircraft debris in NYC falling from the towers after aircraft crash at the WTC towers.

Part of an aircraft crashing through the WTC landing in NYC on 911, proof a aircraft crashing into the WTC, tracked by RADAR to the WTC from takeoff.

Debris from an aircraft which crashed into the WTC.

RADAR data and debris from Flight 11 and 175 expose the no plane theories as delusions.

 

[Furcifer]

Debris is a part of every collision, and the direction the debris flies is (on average) in the opposite direction of the travel path.

You're a fraud. I don't care how many PhD's you have you don't know anything about physics. Even my 4 year old nephew knows this isn't true.

He's a bowler. Perhaps I should get him to explain to you why the bowling pins don't come flying back down the alley?

This is an unbelievably stupid statement that even children know isn't true.