• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...

http://www.robertxgillis.com/?p=1661

September 22, police barricades, descriptions of viewing points.

Where is your "ten foot" fence on day 3?!
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

What I meant was that I didn't write one word about my work on 9/11 until 2005 or so.
 
Sticky Fingers said:
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.
Click to expand...

No problem. All the best to you. I admit that I have been very diligently working on 9/11. You say I'm throwing out evidence, but actually not at all. I'm seeking out evidence. In this case, it's an attempt to answer the question, "Where there hijackings on 9/11?" If you look at all the evidence, it doesn't really add up to four hijackings.

In terms of being a clean slate, you don't quite have the full picture. On the day of 9/11, I was already a Ph.D. and had done amazingly well in all of the sciences. I was humbled by 9/11, because I knew that I was witnessing something on TV that did not fit with my understanding of the universe. I knew I'd have to learn something new before I understood 9/11. That new thing turned out to be the Casimir effect, but I didn't know at the time that that's what it was.

I was not so close minded that I insisted (like most people doing this type of research) that whatever happened on 9/11 must be technology that I was already aware of. I wasn't heading in any direction except towards Ground Zero, and I didn't know where my research would take me. It was not a directed tunnel vision type of thing.

However, I developed a rubric for discarding bad theories. Any theory that wouldn't destroy a strong building made of steel was discarded. Any theory that used excessive heat was discarded. So yes, I have discarded theories, but not willy nilly. Just think about it. I'm one of the only dedicated 9/11 researchers who does not point a finger at the United States government, even though I hated Bush with a passion. If I had been approaching it with tunnel vision, I'd have been happy to blame it on Bush with the rest of them, but they haven't proved their case.

Their whole story is about hijackings. Without the hijackings, the whole 9/11 story falls apart, on the side of the official conspiracy and almost every other conspiracy theory.
 
Dash80 said:
I did smell it, it was nasty... but I don't go inventing imaginary scenarios to explain it.
Click to expand...

That smell was the molecules that used to make up the WTC. That isn't imaginary. That's how smell works. Molecules traveled from Ground Zero and went up your nose, and these molecules bonded to cell surface receptors in your nose. If they had smelled like chocolate, coffee, roses, hydrocarbon fires, or anything you already knew about, you would have been able to identify them. But they didn't, so you weren't.

It was only after I got my WTC dust samples that I realized that those molecules were iron. You can disagree with this all you like, but it's not imaginary. The WTC dust contains a load of iron fragments, a previously under-reported high level of iron fragments.
 
WTC Dust said:
That smell was the molecules that used to make up the WTC. That isn't imaginary. That's how smell works. Molecules traveled from Ground Zero and went up your nose, and these molecules bonded to cell surface receptors in your nose. If they had smelled like chocolate, coffee, roses, hydrocarbon fires, or anything you already knew about, you would have been able to identify them. But they didn't, so you weren't.

It was only after I got my WTC dust samples that I realized that those molecules were iron. You can disagree with this all you like, but it's not imaginary. The WTC dust contains a load of iron fragments, a previously under-reported high level of iron fragments.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

Give us one good reason any of us should believe a single word you say?
 
Justin39640 said:
IIRC, when Tracy first started coming here, she stated she was out of the country on 9/11 and didn't get back to NYC till several days later (more than 3).

Trying to find the post.
Click to expand...

As far as 911 is concerned she is a total fantasist.
 
Justin39640 said:
IIRC, when Tracy first started coming here, she stated she was out of the country on 9/11 and didn't get back to NYC till several days later (more than 3).

Trying to find the post.
Click to expand...

No. I left the country on December 21, 2001. I was on a road trip on the day of 9/11.
 
WTC Dust said:
No. I left the country on December 21, 2001. I was on a road trip on the day of 9/11.
Click to expand...

So you didn't interview your friends on day 2 or visit Ground Zero. We already knew that. Why should we believe a word you say about your non-existent research and your imaginary PhD?
 
WTC Dust said:
1. Based on what?
2. The rest of the building was also destroyed. Concrete, glass, ceramics, wood.
3. Maybe.
4. I'm not worrying about proving things on JREF. The dust isn't regular dust.
Click to expand...
E=mgh was released; Do the math, that is what a scientist does; what you are doing is nonsense.

The dust is what you get when the WTC towers collapse after burning. The smell is exactly what you get with 220 acres of office contents burning for weeks with thousands of dead people.

Your claims of foam steel are nonsense.
 
WTC Dust said:

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.
Click to expand...

I never stated that you haven't proved anything. My statement was that your claim of smelling iron proved nothing. I was attempting to discover the point of your OP. I'm sorry if you construed my tone as offensive, though I do not understand why you consider it to be.

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?


This isn't true. The commonly accepted STORY is that the WTC steel was bent, and some of it was bent. But the commonly accepted story does not have an adequate explanation of the dust. Bending steel doesn't create this sort of dust. It has fragmented iron in it. Some types of the WTC dust are primarily iron fragments, and almost nothing else.

These iron fragments must be accounted for. Yes, you could say that I'm faking my degrees, experience, and even faking the samples, but I'm not. I have discovered that the WTC dust is of different types, but all of these types included a large component of iron fragments. It's much more than the reported 0.3-3% values in the literature.

In fact, the samples are so jam-packed with iron fragments, that they are magnetic. I like the experiment proving that the samples can move a magnet, because this doesn't depend on microscopy. You can see the magnetic content of the dust with the naked eye, and iron is magnetic.

Why do you believe that a fracturing of the steel was the primary cause of collapse, rather than being a result of the collapse? How does steel fracture without any visible force being applied? In other words, the collapse did not begin with any explosion or evident outside force, how is this possible?

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.


Some of the WTC steel was bent. But the majority of the steel was turned into iron fragments. Iron fragments are not what is produced if you add heat to steel. Iron droplets, maybe, if you add a heck of a lot of heat, but iron fragments? Nope.

You could talk about the bent steel all you want. It's a legitimate inquiry, because there was bent steel, and there are plenty of pictures around that show the bent steel. But nobody until me has ever proved that the WTC dust itself is magnetic and at the dust itself contains iron fragments.

To clarify, this dust you're referring to, where was it collected? How can you be certain that the sample was not contaminated from an outside source?

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.


There's no reason to add a tone of mockery or ridicule to this discussion. Either you want to continue this discussion, or you don't, and if you aren't polite, the discussion will end whether or not you want it to continue.

As a response to your statement, biomedical science has a lot to say about smells. In the early days after 9/11, I knew that ... whatever it was .... coming from Ground Zero wasn't smoke from a fire. Later on, after many years of searching, I discovered that the WTC dust was made of tiny iron fragments. After this discovery, I had an answer to the question, "Why does the WTC stench hurt my nose?" Because it is composed of fragmented iron.

There still isn't a good explanation as to why the steel kept fuming for so long.

It sounds as if you're discussing two different things. You collected dust at or near the site (I'm assuming by piecing together your story) and there was a smell in the general area near your home. If that is the case, how do you go from finding iron in dust near or at the site to believing that it was in the air? Previously, I asked you if you had a sample of the air, you replied that you did. Were you referring to the dust instead? Also, what steel was fuming?

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. 1 Reaction to a magnetic field is not unique to iron. 2 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?

1. Not true. That some of the iron rusted is evidence that it is iron. That it is magnetic is evidence that it is iron. That there are dark fragments of magnetic, metallic material in the WTC dust samples is also evidence that it is iron. That it was produced at the very same moment the WTC buildings (made mostly of iron) were destroyed is a key point, here.

I beg your pardon, but my statement was not untrue. You did not show that the dust contained iron by stating that it was magnetic. How do you know that it was produced at the very same moment they were destroyed? I have to assume you did not collect your sample while the collapse was occurring.

2. Do you think it was cobalt? I'd be even more surprised if the WTC dust samples were replete with cobalt. Or what other magnetic component are you thinking of?

If you're stating that it rusted, you've narrowed down the spectrum to iron or an iron based alloy. That being said, how do you know that the iron in this dust was not created from the demolition team or from the friction between the steel beams and materials within the building during the collapse?

3. I tested the pH of the samples because I could and because it had been described as extremely alkaline in the literature. I know what breathing alkaline fumes are like (having worked in laboratories for so many years), and I knew that the WTC fumes didn't really do what alkaline fumes did, so I had a reason to suspect that the pH wasn't really that high. When I tested my samples, they were slightly alkaline, near the alkalinity of milk. NOT the pH 9-10 that had been reported. Testing the pH of any material involves getting it into solution, and the insoluble fraction of the sample must be accounted for and was in this case.

I still don't see the significance of the pH testing as it relates to your claim of DNA in the sample.

Thank you for your response.
 
bob_kark said:
I never stated that you haven't proved anything. My statement was that your claim of smelling iron proved nothing. I was attempting to discover the point of your OP. I'm sorry if you construed my tone as offensive, though I do not understand why you consider it to be.

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?


This isn't true. The commonly accepted STORY is that the WTC steel was bent, and some of it was bent. But the commonly accepted story does not have an adequate explanation of the dust. Bending steel doesn't create this sort of dust. It has fragmented iron in it. Some types of the WTC dust are primarily iron fragments, and almost nothing else.

These iron fragments must be accounted for. Yes, you could say that I'm faking my degrees, experience, and even faking the samples, but I'm not. I have discovered that the WTC dust is of different types, but all of these types included a large component of iron fragments. It's much more than the reported 0.3-3% values in the literature.

In fact, the samples are so jam-packed with iron fragments, that they are magnetic. I like the experiment proving that the samples can move a magnet, because this doesn't depend on microscopy. You can see the magnetic content of the dust with the naked eye, and iron is magnetic.

Why do you believe that a fracturing of the steel was the primary cause of collapse, rather than being a result of the collapse? How does steel fracture without any visible force being applied? In other words, the collapse did not begin with any explosion or evident outside force, how is this possible?


Watch any of the videos of the final destruction of the WTC. What you will see is an explosion, not a collapse. The theory that best suits the evidence is that the magnetic field was altered near the WTC which caused the attractive force of the iron molecules to become repulsive. This involves the Casimir effect, which has not been included in physics textbooks, yet. Check out this reference or find out more on your own. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7226/full/457156a.html



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.


Some of the WTC steel was bent. But the majority of the steel was turned into iron fragments. Iron fragments are not what is produced if you add heat to steel. Iron droplets, maybe, if you add a heck of a lot of heat, but iron fragments? Nope.

You could talk about the bent steel all you want. It's a legitimate inquiry, because there was bent steel, and there are plenty of pictures around that show the bent steel. But nobody until me has ever proved that the WTC dust itself is magnetic and at the dust itself contains iron fragments.

To clarify, this dust you're referring to, where was it collected? How can you be certain that the sample was not contaminated from an outside source?

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.


There's no reason to add a tone of mockery or ridicule to this discussion. Either you want to continue this discussion, or you don't, and if you aren't polite, the discussion will end whether or not you want it to continue.

As a response to your statement, biomedical science has a lot to say about smells. In the early days after 9/11, I knew that ... whatever it was .... coming from Ground Zero wasn't smoke from a fire. Later on, after many years of searching, I discovered that the WTC dust was made of tiny iron fragments. After this discovery, I had an answer to the question, "Why does the WTC stench hurt my nose?" Because it is composed of fragmented iron.

There still isn't a good explanation as to why the steel kept fuming for so long.

It sounds as if you're discussing two different things. You collected dust at or near the site (I'm assuming by piecing together your story) and there was a smell in the general area near your home. If that is the case, how do you go from finding iron in dust near or at the site to believing that it was in the air? Previously, I asked you if you had a sample of the air, you replied that you did. Were you referring to the dust instead? Also, what steel was fuming?


If you want to talk to me, please remember what I said. I didn't take air samples. In 2009, it was the steel of the Deutsche Bank that was fuming. The particles of steel that were too big to float away, fell to the ground as 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.


I don't see anywhere in your testing that you have shown that this dust contains iron. 1 Reaction to a magnetic field is not unique to iron. 2 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?

1. Not true. That some of the iron rusted is evidence that it is iron. That it is magnetic is evidence that it is iron. That there are dark fragments of magnetic, metallic material in the WTC dust samples is also evidence that it is iron. That it was produced at the very same moment the WTC buildings (made mostly of iron) were destroyed is a key point, here.

I beg your pardon, but my statement was not untrue. You did not show that the dust contained iron by stating that it was magnetic. How do you know that it was produced at the very same moment they were destroyed? I have to assume you did not collect your sample while the collapse was occurring.

There aren't that many magnetic elements, but iron is one of them. The magnet test showed that the WTC dust samples I collected were magnetic, which is an indication that they are full of something magnetic. Iron is the most common magnetic element. No one piece of data amounts as proof, and I'm not busy proving anything. I'm busy investigating and picking up pieces of evidence along the way. The magnetic nature of the WTC dust has NEVER before been demonstrated. This is a data point.


2. Do you think it was cobalt? I'd be even more surprised if the WTC dust samples were replete with cobalt. Or what other magnetic component are you thinking of?

If you're stating that it rusted, you've narrowed down the spectrum to iron or an iron based alloy. That being said, how do you know that the iron in this dust was not created from the demolition team or from the friction between the steel beams and materials within the building during the collapse?

Some of the samples are nearly 100% iron foam. You don't get that from some friction that might occur during a demolition.


3. I tested the pH of the samples because I could and because it had been described as extremely alkaline in the literature. I know what breathing alkaline fumes are like (having worked in laboratories for so many years), and I knew that the WTC fumes didn't really do what alkaline fumes did, so I had a reason to suspect that the pH wasn't really that high. When I tested my samples, they were slightly alkaline, near the alkalinity of milk. NOT the pH 9-10 that had been reported. Testing the pH of any material involves getting it into solution, and the insoluble fraction of the sample must be accounted for and was in this case.

I still don't see the significance of the pH testing as it relates to your claim of DNA in the sample.

You are connecting two different tests where I have not. One is the pH. The literature is full of data that says the pH of the dust was extremely alkaline. My tests indicate that it is not very alkaline.

No one has detected DNA in the WTC dust before me. At some point in time in the future, this might allow me to (rather conclusively) show that the WTC dust samples I collected are from WTC 2, as I have concluded. I'll need to do a comparative DNA test with DNA from WTC 2 families. They have this database, but the chances that they will allow me to access it in the near future is very small. Plus, DNA testing is expensive, and I do not have the resources to do this on my own. So I wait.

The DNA proves that the WTC dust was never hot, so it disproves thermite, regular bombs, nukes, and any mechanism that produces extreme heat.

Thank you for your response.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom