WTC dust

[WTC Dust]

It's not just that the dust "has iron in it". It's that the dust is largely iron, especially certain samples. And it is that the dust is in the form of iron foam.

This is key. Iron is a very common element. Iron foam? Not common, to say the least.

Dusty, if it could be proven that "iron" is something that only existed in the complex known as the World Trade Center, you might have something.

Since "iron" is rather ubiquitous, however, your observation of iron in your dust doesn't amount to anything.

We have dust out here in New Mexico.

Guess what?

Our dust has iron, too!

Sorry.

 

[NoahFence]

....and the other 3 questions?

 

[WTC Dust]

Don't smear me with a Truther label, because those people think explosives took down the WTC.

And you've got some nerve implying I'm a conspiracy theorist when you're the one who thinks 19 Arabs conspired to hijack airplanes and the rest.

I'm not talking about anyone conspiring to do anything. I'm conducting a forensic examination of the remains of the World Trade Center. I have not said who did it, and I'm not talking about who did it. The data proves certain theories about WHAT happened are incorrect, but that isn't me talking about a conspiracy. That's what you all do.

By the way, the Holocaust happened. Are you doubting this?

When I was a small child in Chicago's far southwest neighborhood of Mt. Greenwood back in the early 1970s a kid across the street tied a magnet to a string and dragged it through the alley. It picked up lots of small particles that look a lot like your "WTC dust".

But I actually think the conversation us 5-7 year olds had about what it was was more intellectual than what you and henryco had about your "WTC dust".

Just sayin'.

Oh, this kid's parents were Lithuanian survivors of the Holocaust, had the concentration camp serial number tattoos and everything (though they were not Jewish). Something else a lot of you "truthers" deny ever happened.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

It's not just that the dust "has iron in it". It's that the dust is largely iron, especially certain samples. And it is that the dust is in the form of iron foam.

This is key. Iron is a very common element. Iron foam? Not common, to say the least.

Humph. Perhaps a stray cat urinated on the dust while it was sitting outside for years.

Iron filings + feline urine => Iron Foam.

Go ahead - prove me wrong!

 

[WTC Dust]

If I've answered them already, it's up to you to dig through the thread and figure it out. I'm busy, and I don't tend to work extra for people who are verbally unkind to me. Look it up, bro.

....and the other 3 questions?

 

[WTC Dust]

Urine plus iron doesn't produce iron foam, unless you have evidence that it does, in which case I'd like to see it.

Whatever produces the type of foam that I recovered is likely to be the weapon that destroyed the WTC, so I'm quite interested in this.

Cat urine? We both know you're literally taking the piss.

Humph. Perhaps a stray cat urinated on the dust while it was sitting outside for years.

Iron filings + feline urine => Iron Foam.

Go ahead - prove me wrong!

 

[DGM]

If I've answered them already, it's up to you to dig through the thread and figure it out. I'm busy, and I don't tend to work extra for people who are verbally unkind to me. Look it up, bro.

I wasn't "verbally unkind". How would the test you propose prove your theory? For that matter, how would your "dust"?

 

[WTC Dust]

Specifically, what do you expect someone to find in that link?

Actually champ, all you had to do was cut and paste from my original post.

Cut and paste. I mean you did ask for evidence of the hijacking, correct? Something for you to observe, right?

Can you at least click on a link, or just continue being a lazy troll?

Click, link here:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=+FAA+Air+Traff...TC+Cleveland+Center+of+the+hijacking+of+UA+93

Edited to add: the links on that link are disturbing. Please be warned.

 

[NoahFence]

Don't smear me with a Truther label, because those people think explosives took down the WTC.

And you've got some nerve implying I'm a conspiracy theorist when you're the one who thinks 19 Arabs conspired to hijack airplanes and the rest.

I'm not talking about anyone conspiring to do anything. I'm conducting a forensic examination of the remains of the World Trade Center. I have not said who did it, and I'm not talking about who did it. The data proves certain theories about WHAT happened are incorrect, but that isn't me talking about a conspiracy. That's what you all do.

By the way, the Holocaust happened. Are you doubting this?

Lies, lies and more lies.

 

[NoahFence]

If I've answered them already, it's up to you to dig through the thread and figure it out. I'm busy, and I don't tend to work extra for people who are verbally unkind to me. Look it up, bro.

You haven't answered them.

You won't answer them. You lie. You are a liar. That's what you DO.

I'm a printer. That's what I do.

You're a liar. That's what you do.

Simple enough.

 

[WTC Dust]

Two things about pixe that I'm favoring. First, it's a three dimensional technique. Techniques such as mass spectroscopy grind up the sample, put it in solution, and get an average of what's there. Not only has mass spec already been done on WTC samples (and therefore has less investigative value), but it doesn't even begin to approach the form of the sample. Mass spec can't tell you whether or not a sample is a foam because it tests solutions.

Secondly, pixe doesn't destroy the sample. Unlike mass spec, again. When you're done with pixe, you get the identical sample back. After all these years of effort and patience, I'm understandably hesistant to use a technique that won't tell me anything new and that destroys the sample, so I'm not really intrested in mass spec for those reasons.

I wasn't "verbally unkind". How would the test you propose prove your theory?

 

[The Big Dog]

Specifically, what do you expect someone to find in that link?

Uh you did click it correct?

I assume you did, because otherwise we would have to question your good faith.

Now when you reviewed the google search for "FAA Air Traffic Control audio from ATC Cleveland Center of the hijacking of UA 93," what did you discover, Doctor?

 

[WTC Dust]

If you apologize for calling me a liar and promise never to do it again, then
I won't put you on ignore.

Your choice.

You haven't answered them.

You won't answer them. You lie. You are a liar. That's what you DO.

I'm a printer. That's what I do.

You're a liar. That's what you do.

Simple enough.

 

[WTC Dust]

Thank you for properly addressing me using my correct title.

I might or might not click on the link, depending on what you say I'm going to find there.

I've already thoroughly investigated the 19-Arab-conspiracy theory and found it wanting. What do you want to show me?

Uh you did click it correct?

I assume you did, because otherwise we would have to question your good faith.

Now when you reviewed the google search for "FAA Air Traffic Control audio from ATC Cleveland Center of the hijacking of UA 93," what did you discover, Doctor?

 

[DGM]

Two things about pixe that I'm favoring. First, it's a three dimensional technique. Techniques such as mass spectroscopy grind up the sample, put it in solution, and get an average of what's there. Not only has mass spec already been done on WTC samples (and therefore has less investigative value), but it doesn't even begin to approach the form of the sample. Mass spec can't tell you whether or not a sample is a foam because it tests solutions.

Secondly, pixe doesn't destroy the sample. Unlike mass spec, again. When you're done with pixe, you get the identical sample back. After all these years of effort and patience, I'm understandably hesistant to use a technique that won't tell me anything new and that destroys the sample, so I'm not really intrested in mass spec for those reasons.

But, that does not answer my question. What would make a "beam weapon" sample different (thus proving your theory?

 

[WTC Dust]

Beam weapon isn't my theory. It's Dr. Judy Wood's theory.

My samples will be a test of her theory and any other.
Any suggested mechanism of destruction of the WTC must produce iron foam similiar to my samples.

But, that does not answer my question. What would make a "beam weapon" sample different (thus proving your theory?

 

[The Big Dog]

Thank you for properly addressing me using my correct title.

I might or might not click on the link, depending on what you say I'm going to find there.

I've already thoroughly investigated the 19-Arab-conspiracy theory and found it wanting. What do you want to show me?

Now Dusty, you are calling into question your good faith. You claim that you "already thoroughly investigated the 19-Arab-conspiracy theory," yet you were not aware of the tapes of hijacking of Flight 93, or even that ATC meant Air Traffic Control. I find that curious, wouldn't you?.

You have requested evidence of the hijacking, and I have provided you links to the tape.

So it would seem the ball is in your court, wouldn't you agree?

 

[DGM]

Beam weapon isn't my theory. It's Dr. Judy Wood's theory.

My samples will be a test of her theory and any other.
Any suggested mechanism of destruction of the WTC must produce iron foam similiar to my samples.

So you're going ahead with no baseline? How will it "test her theory" if you don't know what kind of product her theory would produce?

 

[WTC Dust]

I don't want a thousand items. I want one. Show me one item that you consider rock solid proof of hijackings on 9/11, and we can talk about it.

I've been studying 9/11 for ten years now. I've already studied the official story. You might have something I have seen, though, so I'm waiting.

Now Dusty, you are calling into question your good faith. You claim that you "already thoroughly investigated the 19-Arab-conspiracy theory," yet you were not aware of the tapes of hijacking of Flight 93, or even that ATC meant Air Traffic Control. I find that curious, wouldn't you?.

You have requested evidence of the hijacking, and I have provided you links to the tape.

So it would seem the ball is in your court, wouldn't you agree?

 

[NoahFence]

If you apologize for calling me a liar and promise never to do it again, then
I won't put you on ignore.

Your choice.

LOL