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

[NoahFence]

This retarded thread is still active?

 

[The Big Dog]

I knew it was low heat on Day 2 after the attacks, when I interviewed my close friends about it. We all lived in a loft building on Bleecker Street, and two of them had been caught up in the dust cloud. Neither of them were burned. You can see paper in the dust, which meant that it wasn't hot enough to burn the paper.

Day 3 after the attacks was rainy, but I made my way down to Ground Zero anyway, and took a look at the damage. You couldn't see much at all above a ten foot fence from street level. That day was quite rainy, and there were fire fighters from all over the place pouring water on the site.

A week later, it rained again, pretty heavy, and I thought to myself, "Well, at least the fire will go out now." But it didn't. The fumes kept coming. Weeks and weeks later, moving onto months where it was now quite cold, the fumes kept coming.

That isn't how heat works. Heat dissipates. Months of rain, fire fighting efforts, and cold weather did not abate the fumes.

That is curious because the only near contemporaneous writings I could find from you make no mention of the smell. The only thing I could find from you was a desire for people to "move into ground zero." I also find no reference to investigating the dust while you were "panhandling" in London and New York.

/I assume your other activities that you write about during that period are COMPLETELY unrelated.

 

[WTC Dust]

It appears I missed your post at first. Thank you again for your response.

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.

Okay, so can we agree that your claim regarding the addition of jet fuel to steel and resulting fire at atmospheric pressure has no real bearing on the collapse of the WTC?


Not at all. BENDING steel was not the major mechanism of action going on at the WTC. If I devoted 100% of my efforts conducting these types of experiments, it would have no relevance to the 9/11 attacks. What you might not understand about my work is that I am not concerned with proving the airplane crash mechanism to be false. I am working on what did actually destroy the WTC. If anyone is still clinging to the airplane crash mechanism, they will have to extricate themselves from that mess. I will not dedicate my time to proving the official story false. It doesn't move towards the truth, and it's been done.


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

Microscopic images of WTC dust samples.

So, if your proof is truly evidence of iron particulate in dust samples, why present your perceived smell of iron as proof instead?

I didn't put out smell as the proof that I was inhaling iron particles. The microscopic images of the wTC dust are the proof. I used my knowledge of the iron particles to explain the pain I felt in my nose when I smelled the WTC fumes.

What other materials have you compared this smell to?

Hydrocarbon fires, all types.

While I can see how this would help you rule out the possibility that this smell was the result of a flammable liquid burning, I don't see how this helps you to ascertain that the smell is indeed iron.

The microscopic images are the proof that the dust contains iron particles. No type of fire produces these types of iron particles.

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.

Who has completed this testing for you? Can you quantify the testing methodology and results of this testing for us?

No one has "completed" this testing for me. I'm the scientist. Any tests done on my samples will be undertaken by me or supervised by me. There is a scenario where (if I had plenty of funding), I could have a whole lot of tests done at my discretion and under my control. But I don't, so that's an issue. But even if I had an infinite amount of money, I would still focus my efforts on work that has not already been done and that could lead to a greater understanding of the mechanism of action that destroyed the WTC. These experiments would involve further DNA tests and non-destructive microscopy. Most of the tests that have been done are qualitative tests. Can the dust move a magnet? Answer: yes. Does the dust contain DNA? Answer: Some does, some doesn't. I've done a few pH tests, which are quantitative. The pH of dissolved dust is only slightly alkaline, something along the alkalinity of milk.

Thank you for your response.
You are very welcome.

 

[WTC Dust]

Not exactly the same type of event at the same scale, but I've been on the scene at pretty major fires otj, and have been at the scene of car bombing/IED detonations in 03-04, and those types of events create a smell cocktail that you don't forget.

I can't imagine the destruction at the WTC would be anyhing but more of everything for a longer period of time.

And no, it ain't hush-a-bomb residue. Or rayguns from space, or metal munching moon mice.

If you had smelled the WTC stench, then you'd be able to recognize it for the rest of your life. That's how smell memory works.

 

[WTC Dust]

That is curious because the only near contemporaneous writings I could find from you make no mention of the smell. The only thing I could find from you was a desire for people to "move into ground zero." I also find no reference to investigating the dust while you were "panhandling" in London and New York.

/I assume your other activities that you write about during that period are COMPLETELY unrelated.

It is true that I didn't speak or write one word in public about 9/11 until 2005. It took me a long time to put the pieces together, and they still aren't entirely in place. But, around 2005, I decided that I did have something different to add that was relevant. I'm sure most of you will say that I don't have anything relevant, but that's beside the point.

Until about 2004, all the conspiracy nonsense written about 9/11 was not pertinent to my work on the destruction of the WTC, anyway. It was all about Zionists and the Bildeburgers. blah

 

[The Big Dog]

It is true that I didn't speak or write one word in public about 9/11 until 2005. It took me a long time to put the pieces together, and they still aren't entirely in place. But, around 2005, I decided that I did have something different to add that was relevant. I'm sure most of you will say that I don't have anything relevant, but that's beside the point.

Until about 2004, all the conspiracy nonsense written about 9/11 was not pertinent to my work on the destruction of the WTC, anyway. It was all about Zionists and the Bildeburgers. blah

Well, as I already pointed out, that is not true. You did write about 911. You said you thought that people should move to Ground Zero to take it back from the "terrorists." There was no reference to "smell" in any of your writing before you left for Europe. I would link you to it but:

1. you don't do links.
2. it is very not safe for work

 

[WTC Dust]

Well, as I already pointed out, that is not true. You did write about 911. You said you thought that people should move to Ground Zero to take it back from the "terrorists." There was no reference to "smell" in any of your writing before you left for Europe. I would link you to it but:

1. you don't do links.
2. it is very not safe for work

I didn't write about my work on 9/11 until after 2005.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I got my degree from a university that was located out of state but operated a satellite campus in my area out of a military base.

Nevertheless, I never tell people I got my degree from the National Guard.

It's a long time since I got my degree, and if I'm honest I'm not completely sure where it is (think it's in the loft, but it might be at the back of the wardrobe).

But I'm not in any doubt about the name of the body which awarded it. That would seem an odd thing to forget.

 

[The Big Dog]

I didn't write about my work on 9/11 until after 2005.

That was long after the "smell" had dissipated, correct, and your contemporaneous writings do not reference the smell.

So we can check that off the list! Excellent. We are making progress.

 

[bob_kark]

You are very welcome.

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.

Okay, so can we agree that your claim regarding the addition of jet fuel to steel and resulting fire at atmospheric pressure has no real bearing on the collapse of the WTC?


Not at all. BENDING steel was not the major mechanism of action going on at the WTC. If I devoted 100% of my efforts conducting these types of experiments, it would have no relevance to the 9/11 attacks. What you might not understand about my work is that I am not concerned with proving the airplane crash mechanism to be false. I am working on what did actually destroy the WTC. If anyone is still clinging to the airplane crash mechanism, they will have to extricate themselves from that mess. I will not dedicate my time to proving the official story false. It doesn't move towards the truth, and it's been done.

How was bending steel not the major mechanism? We have a building with a dual support structure, an exterior steel tube frame, similar to an exoskeleton and a core with steel columns. This allowed the building to have additional floor space. However, because the planes severed the exterior support structure and penetrated the core, a great deal of structural integrity was lost. Added to this, the heat, not from the jet fuel, which likely quickly burned away, but from the materials inside the WTC that they ignited (carpet, furniture, etc...) further reduced the structural integrity of the buildings. So, we now have pressure from a reduced support structure and heat from numerous materials burning out of control within the buildings. I don't see how the bending of steel does not matter in this scenario.

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

Microscopic images of WTC dust samples.

So, if your proof is truly evidence of iron particulate in dust samples, why present your perceived smell of iron as proof instead?

I didn't put out smell as the proof that I was inhaling iron particles. The microscopic images of the wTC dust are the proof. I used my knowledge of the iron particles to explain the pain I felt in my nose when I smelled the WTC fumes.


So, why the clever ruse? If you're simply falling back on to your perceived results of your testing, this smell has no bearing on your OP, i.e. it proved nothing.

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.

Who has completed this testing for you? Can you quantify the testing methodology and results of this testing for us?

No one has "completed" this testing for me. I'm the scientist. Any tests done on my samples will be undertaken by me or supervised by me. There is a scenario where (if I had plenty of funding), I could have a whole lot of tests done at my discretion and under my control. But I don't, so that's an issue. But even if I had an infinite amount of money, I would still focus my efforts on work that has not already been done and that could lead to a greater understanding of the mechanism of action that destroyed the WTC. These experiments would involve further DNA tests and non-destructive microscopy. Most of the tests that have been done are qualitative tests. Can the dust move a magnet? Answer: yes. Does the dust contain DNA? Answer: Some does, some doesn't. I've done a few pH tests, which are quantitative. The pH of dissolved dust is only slightly alkaline, something along the alkalinity of milk.


I don't see anywhere in your testing that you have shown that this dust contains iron. Reaction to a magnetic field is not unique to iron. I also don't follow the significance of pH testing on dust and it's relation to DNA. Obviously, you believe the dust to contain many particulates, pH testing would only find the pH average of the sampled particulate. In addition, if DNA were discovered in the dust, how can you be certain that this was not due to contamination from any number of sources, least of all bacteria? What does DNA have to do with the WTC in the first place?

Thank you for your response.

 

[WTC Dust]

That was long after the "smell" had dissipated, correct, and your contemporaneous writings do not reference the smell.

So we can check that off the list! Excellent. We are making progress.

I was investigating the smell starting from the first few days after the attacks. I told you I didn't write about my work on 9/11 until 2005.

 

[Mojo]

I was investigating the smell starting from the first few days after the attacks.

Did you take any air samples?

 

[WTC Dust]

Did you take any air samples?

No.

 

[tsig]

I was investigating the smell starting from the first few days after the attacks. I told you I didn't write about my work on 9/11 until 2005.

Did you take any air samples to try and figure out what that smell was?

 

[The Big Dog]

I was investigating the smell starting from the first few days after the attacks. I told you I didn't write about my work on 9/11 until 2005.

No, Tracy, that is not what you said. What you said was:

"It is true that I didn't speak or write one word in public about 9/11 until 2005."

And then I pointed out that was not true, and that in fact you wrote as follows:

"rainbeauxbarbie.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_archive.html
May 31, 2004 – posted by rainbeaux barbie @ 1:31 PM 2 comments .... think of a better way to defeat terror than to build a living, thriving community at the exact ..."

The rest of it is cut off, and i am not permitted to access that site at work.

Words have meaning, Tracy.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

I knew it was low heat on Day 2 after the attacks, when I interviewed my close friends about it. We all lived in a loft building on Bleecker Street, and two of them had been caught up in the dust cloud. Neither of them were burned. You can see paper in the dust, which meant that it wasn't hot enough to burn the paper.

The whole building was never on fire so you wouldn't have expected all of the paper in the building to burn. Some of it floated in the air over the river to NJ.

Nothing suspicious about that and certainly no evidence that the WTC fire was a low heat fire.

Tracy. I will give you my honest take on you.....

You seem like a good enough person.
Have been very civil on these boards.
I don't question whether you got those degrees or not or worked the jobs you said you did.

What I think has happened is that has come back to cloud your judgement.

You are trying to relate your previous education, research, lab and job work to what happened at the WTC.

You have developed tunnel vision.
Instead of starting off with a clean slate,
you have tossed out anything that may not fit into the direction you are heading.

You are refusing to consider and throwing out evidence (such as the hijackers)
because it does not fit into your model, which isn't even really fully developed yet.

And I am sure that you don't see this and are completely unaware it is happening,
but it is why I think you have frustrated many people here.

Anyway. I don't have any hard feeling toward you and I send you my best.

 

[Dash80]

It's amazing how this confusion goes away when you quit positing imaginary mechanisms.

[deleted]

 

[Dash80]

Oops responded to wrong person, sorry aggle-rithm

 

[Dash80]

If you had smelled the WTC stench, then you'd be able to recognize it for the rest of your life. That's how smell memory works.

I did smell it, it was nasty... but I don't go inventing imaginary scenarios to explain it.

 

[Dash80]

Thanks again for your response, but saying "you haven't proved anything!" and things like that aren't appropriate. I'm not proving anything to you. I'm explaining what my results were and talking about my conclusions. I am not attempting to prove anything, and if I were, I wouldn't be attempting to prove it in the JREF forums.

Testing my concepts is what I'm doing. Do I get any substantial criticism for my ideas? So far, you've been the nicest, but even you have a bit of mockery to your tone.

Could you please stop putting your responses inside quotes?

It makes it harder to respond properly and your bright font choices are making my retinas ache.