Merged No Planes At WTC (Split from: WTC Dust)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Very interesting OP, WTC Dust. And welcome back.

While I agree with your point no. 1 in terms of what ultimately caused the buildings to fail (in the manner they did), you seem to be ignoring the extensive testimony about the heat under the rubble pile and the accounts of molten steel and molten metals. Are you claiming this didn't occur? If you're not claiming this, how do you account for this intense heat in the rubble pile?

Whatever destroyed the WTC it:
1. was not an extremely hot process, and
2. produced. fumes that were resistant to fire fighting efforts and occasionally heavy rain for at least 100 days.

Anyone who suggested a mechanism of WTC destruction had to fulfill these criteria, or they were wrong. Which is why I knew Steven Jones was wrong as soon as I read about his thermite theory, and why I'm not convinced that Judy Wood is wrong (because her mechanism doesn't require heat). She has not yet explained the long lasting nature of the WTC fumes, but I can't fault her for that, because neither have I. My work continues.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting OP, WTC Dust. And welcome back.

While I agree with your point no. 1 in terms of what ultimately caused the buildings to fail (in the manner they did), you seem to be ignoring the extensive testimony about the heat under the rubble pile and the accounts of molten steel and molten metals. Are you claiming this didn't occur? If you're not claiming this, how do you account for this intense heat in the rubble pile?

Well, this interaction should be disturbing to watch.
 
I'd like to ask WTC dust how much of the WTC towers were on fire. Say as a percentage. Or even a rough fraction.

You can even go back and look at the video footage available if that helps.

Once you've established that percentage, you could then estimate how much of the building should have been burnt to a cinder, instead of just, oh I don't know let's put something totally mental out there, collapsing after a localised but intense blaze compromised the structural integrity of the upper parts of the buildings.
 
I smelled it too. To me it smelled like the odor you always smell when there's been a big fire in the neighborhood.

To you it smelled like...tiny iron particles? I would say okay, so what?, except...

I notice your footer says the WTC didn't collapse, it turned to dust while standing and then collapsed. So I'm guessing you're a conspiracy theorist and thus everything you allege has to be seen with that understanding.

I couldn't fabricate my WTC dust samples.
 
http://www.nyccfb.info/public/voter-guide/general_2001/cd_statements/comp_tblevins.htm

Though there seems to be a mistake in the information there in the above link. The U Of T Houston Medical School doesn't award PhDs. the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, does. Eh, what's the difference, right?

http://mdphd.uth.tmc.edu/program-information.html

GSBS closed up shop for renovations when I was getting my degree, so we moved to the hospital. Our labs were physically located at UT Houston Medical School when I defended my thesis.
 
I thought your theory is that the buildings were turned completely into dust. Where did these remaining materials come from?

You got it wrong. My theory is that all the WTC components were turned almost entirely into this metallic powdery stuff. Not 100% of it ended up powdery foams and aerosols. The fumes came from Ground Zero, from the short pile of what remained.
 
What testing have you performed on the steel alloys used in the WTC support structure to determine the heat and force required to bend said steel? Can you quantify your results, testing methodology, and materials used for us?

I haven't done this, and I never plan to do this.


Also, how were you able to confirm that this smell was iron, versus any other material?

Microscopic images of WTC dust samples.


What other materials have you compared this smell to?

Hydrocarbon fires, all types.

Did you save a sample for comparison, given that you claim that the air contained iron particulate?

Yes. I have a huge collection of WTC dust.

Have you done any testing on this sample?

Most of the samples remain untested, but several physical tests were conducted on samples of the samples.

Thank you for your response.

You're welcome.
 
So this smell must be as a result of your iron melting foam. Can you explain, using your first class chemistry knowledge, why that was? What chemicals/compounds combined to produce those smells? What chemicals/compounds were used to create the reactions that resulted in those smells? Could you recreate those smells for testing purposes? If not, why not?

Iron foam created in a low temperature process isn't in the textbooks. If it was, then the most interesting aspect of 9/11 would already be solved.

I do not have equipment that is capable of turning steel into dust at low temperature.
 
Tracy, did you conduct any tests on how marijuana smoking affected your sense of smell?

/Tracy was a major proponent of medical marijuana, so it is clearly a fair question

You aren't denying the WTC stench, or are you? If I had been the only one that smelled it, you might have a point about my marijuana advocacy.
 
Thanks!



You smelled a bad odor that lasted 100 days? That seems like a strange way to put it. To count it in days. One hundred days from September 11, 2001 would be December 20, 2001. Wouldn't it seem more -- dare I say it? -- normal to say, the smell lasted until late December?

Are you saying the smell suddenly cleared up on December 21st?

I remember this day because I left on a trip to England on this day. The smell was still here when I returned. It was still here six months, a year, and many years later.

Anyway, it was a massive massive fire. The site cleanup proceeded very slowly because of the remains and because it was a crime scene. There was going to be an odor.



"An odor" yes, but this particular odor? No. This odor was not an ordinary smell, and nobody before me has identified the reason for the odor.


On the day of 9/11 you knew it was going to be very unlikely that you'd be the one to "personally" discover what destroyed WTC? You mean as soon as it happened your immediate reaction was to wonder, "How likely is it I'll be the one to figure out what destroyed WTC?" I don't get that.


I knew that airplane crashes couldn't do it. I knew that the story being told about hijackings had nothing to do with the destruction of the WTC. I knew that I, personally, would not stop searching for the real answer until I found it. I expected that someone else would be the person who discovered the answer. I did not expect that I would eventually make important discoveries on my own. I expected to read a proper explanation written by someone else.

Why would anyone think that?

Because I knew I'd be working on it.

Unless you were an FBI agent assigned to the New York office. Or a detective assigned to NYPD's Major Case Squad. In an event of this magnitude, why would somone with no official standing, an outsider, even be thinking about being the one to "discover" what happened? That makes no sense to me.

You could call me an outsider, but I became a victim. The WTC stench bathed my home every day, and I suffered some health consequences.

Anyway, can we cut to the chase? You smelled a weird odor. It lasted almost to Christmas. So...what're you saying? :confused:

.


Not true. It lasted until late 2009/2010, and it finally stopped when they finished deconstructing the Deutsche Bank.
 
Very interesting OP, WTC Dust. And welcome back.

While I agree with your point no. 1 in terms of what ultimately caused the buildings to fail (in the manner they did), you seem to be ignoring the extensive testimony about the heat under the rubble pile and the accounts of molten steel and molten metals. Are you claiming this didn't occur? If you're not claiming this, how do you account for this intense heat in the rubble pile?

LOL

I'm not ignoring this evidence. With thousands of thermite supporters crawling the inner tubes, I could hardly avoid it.

Actually, I read it when it first came out and discarded it as not fitting my rubric of low temperature. Since then, it has been shown to me and re=shown ad nauseum, so I'm quite familiar with what is said to be evidence of high heat and still discard it.
 
I'd like to ask WTC dust how much of the WTC towers were on fire. Say as a percentage. Or even a rough fraction.

You can even go back and look at the video footage available if that helps.

Once you've established that percentage, you could then estimate how much of the building should have been burnt to a cinder, instead of just, oh I don't know let's put something totally mental out there, collapsing after a localised but intense blaze compromised the structural integrity of the upper parts of the buildings.

Approximately 0% of the WTC was on fire, if by "fire" you mean a traditional fire.
 
LOL

I'm not ignoring this evidence. With thousands of thermite supporters crawling the inner tubes, I could hardly avoid it.

Actually, I read it when it first came out and discarded it as not fitting my rubric of low temperature. Since then, it has been shown to me and re=shown ad nauseum, so I'm quite familiar with what is said to be evidence of high heat and still discard it.

So you didn't ignore other theories, you just hand wave anything that doesn't support your pet theory... I see.
 
GSBS closed up shop for renovations when I was getting my degree, so we moved to the hospital. Our labs were physically located at UT Houston Medical School when I defended my thesis.

Your saying GSBS ceased to exist? And the Medical School, which is not accredited to award PhDs awarded PhDs?

What building you physically took classes in or where you defended your thesis doesn't change who awards the degree. So since UT Houston Medical School does not award PhDs, why do you claim to have one from there?
 
On the day of 9/11, I knew that it was very unlikely that I would personally be the one who discovered what destroyed the WTC because, my background is in pharmacology, but to be truthful, I only studied pharmacology for five years. I studied chemistry for eleven years. My background is chemistry. Yeah, I specialized in the chemistry of biological processes, but whoopdeedoo. What I was doing every day was chemistry. Where I lacked a bit was physics, but I knew that my chemistry could play a role.

My knowledge of chemistry, especially, was a key aspect of my instant recognition that something was wrong about the plane crash story. What I see in the 9/11 videos as a chemist is a large amount of steel standing still...and then a large amount of various colors of gray material coming from the building. I've performed enough chemical reactions to know how things generally go, and things don't generally go like this in the laboratory.

In the laboratory, if you add any amount of jet fuel at atmospheric pressure to any amount of steel, and if you then light the jet fuel on fire, what you would get is a short lived fire and warmed, solid steel, with most of its strength. Yes, heating the steel up to the maximum combustion temperature would have resulted in some decrease in material strength of the steel, but not much.

But that is not the first thought I had. The first thought I had was, "Where did all this dust come from?" I was not on Manhattan on the day of 9/11. I was traveling back to Manhattan from a road trip. When I got to Delaware, I did not expect to see the black horizon coming from very near the place where I lived on Bleecker Street. When I got out of the truck after ditching it in a parking garage near midtown, I did not expect to smell this particular smell.

Smell is chemistry. As a biologist I know about smells. I know how smells happen and what makes a smell. This particular smell was more than a smell. It was a painful feeling, and the smell that was attached to this painful feeling was unlike anything I'd ever smelled before. It didn't fit any of my smell categories. I now know that I was inhaling particles of iron, which caused the weird smell and the pain, but I didn't know that then. All I knew was that it wasn't a biological smell and that I could also smell the decaying human bodies. That was harsh. I'll never forget the smell of those bodies. That means that bits and pieces of the people that died entered my body, as did the powdered remains of the WTC.

The day I got home, I talked to two people who were caught up in the dust cloud. Neither one was burned.

Then 100 days later, I could still smell the unique WTC stench, so I had an additional data point. Whatever happened on 9/11/2001 didn't end on 9/11/2001. I could still smell it on 12/21/2001, 100 days later, as strong as in the first few days.

I swore I'd never stop searching for the correct answer to what happened on 9/11. I swore that nobody could ever change my mind that what I was smelling on day 100 was a normal office fire. But I didn't know that I'd eventually make real discoveries that ranked with the best in the world, which happened a few years ago when I discovered a large cache of WTC dust. That was somewhat lucky (if you consider 8 years of searching to be lucky).

On 9/11, I didn't think that I would make any important discoveries related to discovering the real weapon. But I knew I would recognize the correct answer if I ever encountered it. I had a rubric that would identify correct and even partially correct answers.

Whatever destroyed the WTC it:
1. was not an extremely hot process, and
2. produced fumes that were resistant to fire fighting efforts and occasionally heavy rain for at least 100 days.

Anyone who suggested a mechanism of WTC destruction had to fulfill these criteria, or they were wrong. Which is why I knew Steven Jones was wrong as soon as I read about his thermite theory, and why I'm not convinced that Judy Wood is wrong (because her mechanism doesn't require heat). She has not yet explained the long lasting nature of the WTC fumes, but I can't fault her for that, because neither have I. My work continues.

Can you provide us with the names of the people who told you this?
 
So you didn't ignore other theories, you just hand wave anything that doesn't support your pet theory... I see.

You all met me soon after I had a theory, in 2010. Until then, I did not have a theory, pet, or otherwise. I was engaged in direct research, yes, making observations, interviewing survivors, and searching for WTC dust. I was doing the equivalent of a "literature search" and reading everything that people were saying on the internet about the subject.

But I didn't have a theory for all of that time. You did not meet me until after 9 years of wading through the mire without a theory. Most of 9/11 stuff is conspiracy theories, not science, and not written by scientists, so it was weary having to trudge through all that stuff constantly.

Now that I know a big chunk of the answer, I'm talking about it. But it isn't based on a conspiracy theory, and it isn't based on anything but excellent, methodical, plodding research.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom