Merged The Origin of Two Different Colors of WTC Dust

WTC Dust said:
1. Microscopic images show iron fragments in large abundance in the dust.
2. The steel didn't produce different colored iron fragments. The perimeters of the buildings were composed of more that just iron, unlike the elevator shafts. The elevator shafts were made of steel and empty space. The lighter dust contains a lot of iron fragments, but it's lighter because of the other materials that are also in the dust. The darker dust is almost entirely iron fragments.
3. There were some people trapped in elevators, but most of them moved to the perimeter. I'm not saying they didn't die in the stairwells or the elevator shafts, but rather that I did not detect DNA in the darker dust, which is consistent with the people moving towards the perimeter.
4. True on both accounts.
Click to expand...

1. I repeat, darker "dust" was SMOKE and ASH.

2. Perimeter: Aluminum clad steel, drywall clad on inside.
Core: Steel enclosed by drywall.

How does this produce different colors?

3. Maybe a cat pissed on some of the dust.

4. Exactly, you have nothing. Just some dust that could be anything.
 
Dash80 said:
1. I repeat, darker "dust" was SMOKE and ASH.

2. Perimeter: Aluminum clad steel, drywall clad on inside.
Core: Steel enclosed by drywall.

How does this produce different colors?

3. Maybe a cat pissed on some of the dust.

4. Exactly, you have nothing. Just some dust that could be anything.
Click to expand...

We should have a fantasy forum just for WTCDust.
 
Dash80 said:
1. I repeat, darker "dust" was SMOKE and ASH.

2. Perimeter: Aluminum clad steel, drywall clad on inside.
Core: Steel enclosed by drywall.

How does this produce different colors?

3. Maybe a cat pissed on some of the dust.

4. Exactly, you have nothing. Just some dust that could be anything.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Contamination is a real thing and it has real effects. Contamination, by itself, isn't absolute grounds for rejecting a sample. Also, every single sample of WTC dust ever tested was collected in the open air, scooped off the ground, etc. The contamination of my samples must be compared to the contamination of every other WTC dust sample. Contamination with a biological sample wouldn't produce this type of material. Contamination with a mineral sample wouldn't produce this type of material. As a biomedical scientist, I've dealt with contamination a bazillion times, either preventing it or coping with it. No amount of contamination is going to produce a completely new material, such as the WTC dust samples that I found.
 
WTC Dust said:
No amount of contamination is going to produce a completely new material, such as the WTC dust samples that I found.
Click to expand...

This statement would actually mean something if you had actually done any testing. As far as I can tell you, checked PH, dragged a magnet near it and looked at it with a microscope.

Is this the methods you used to qualify this "new material"?
 
WTC Dust said:
Contamination is a real thing and it has real effects. Contamination, by itself, isn't absolute grounds for rejecting a sample. Also, every single sample of WTC dust ever tested was collected in the open air, scooped off the ground, etc. The contamination of my samples must be compared to the contamination of every other WTC dust sample. Contamination with a biological sample wouldn't produce this type of material. Contamination with a mineral sample wouldn't produce this type of material. As a biomedical scientist, I've dealt with contamination a bazillion times, either preventing it or coping with it. No amount of contamination is going to produce a completely new material, such as the WTC dust samples that I found.
Click to expand...

You have yet to show any signs of being any kind of a scientist. (Note to mods, can this thread be combined with her dust thread? We are rehashing the same old nonsense here.)
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
Contamination is a real thing and it has real effects. Contamination, by itself, isn't absolute grounds for rejecting a sample. Also, every single sample of WTC dust ever tested was collected in the open air, scooped off the ground, etc. The contamination of my samples must be compared to the contamination of every other WTC dust sample. Contamination with a biological sample wouldn't produce this type of material. Contamination with a mineral sample wouldn't produce this type of material. As a biomedical scientist, I've dealt with contamination a bazillion times, either preventing it or coping with it. No amount of contamination is going to produce a completely new material, such as the WTC dust samples that I found.
Click to expand...

You have not even proven the pile of stuff you scraped up 8 YEARS LATER is from the WTC.

Repeating your claim that it's WTC dust is misleading at best, or a blatant lie.
 
I found most of my WTC dust in this building, deep inside a hole that exits in an 8th floor alcove on the right side of the building, but on the opposite street, Washington Street. This building is located 2 blocks from Ground Zero.

Here's a picture of the hole, from the inside. Here's a picture of what is in the hole, looking downwards (concrete ledges). Some of the concrete ledges had cigarette butts. Gross! This little pile was relatively clean, given the circumstance.
 

Attachments

  • 75 west street.jpg
    75 west street.jpg
    84.3 KB · Views: 3
  • nook picture looking up.jpg
    nook picture looking up.jpg
    70.7 KB · Views: 5
  • Looking down from the top of the nook.jpg
    Looking down from the top of the nook.jpg
    72.1 KB · Views: 5
  • cigarette butts.jpg
    cigarette butts.jpg
    93.6 KB · Views: 5
  • small clean dust.jpg
    small clean dust.jpg
    97.7 KB · Views: 5
WTC Dust said:
I found most of my WTC dust in this building, deep inside a hole that exits in an 8th floor alcove on the right side of the building, but on the opposite street, Washington Street. This building is located 2 blocks from Ground Zero.

Here's a picture of the hole, from the inside. Here's a picture of what is in the hole, looking downwards (concrete ledges). Some of the concrete ledges had cigarette butts. Gross! This little pile was relatively clean, given the circumstance.
Click to expand...

Here you are, more attention.
 
A close up analysis of one piece of WTC dust

I've attached an image of the WTC dust in situ (as it was found) and three copies of the image with what I believe might be three different main types of WTC dust.
 

Attachments

  • small clean dust.jpg
    small clean dust.jpg
    97.7 KB · Views: 9
  • lightest colored dust.jpg
    lightest colored dust.jpg
    106.4 KB · Views: 8
  • medium colored dust.jpg
    medium colored dust.jpg
    103.6 KB · Views: 5
  • darkest color dust.jpg
    darkest color dust.jpg
    100.9 KB · Views: 5
WTC Dust said:
I found most of my WTC dust in this building, deep inside a hole that exits in an 8th floor alcove on the right side of the building, but on the opposite street, Washington Street. This building is located 2 blocks from Ground Zero.

Here's a picture of the hole, from the inside. Here's a picture of what is in the hole, looking downwards (concrete ledges). Some of the concrete ledges had cigarette butts. Gross! This little pile was relatively clean, given the circumstance.
Click to expand...

Congratulations, you found a bunch of vile looking stuff in what appears to an airshaft.

The photo of the ledges shows what looks like bird poop and something resembling vomit. :eye-poppi
 
Dash80 said:
Congratulations, you found a bunch of vile looking stuff in what appears to an airshaft.

The photo of the ledges shows what looks like bird poop and something resembling vomit. :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Science isn't always pretty. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom