• 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.
I got to know a guy who was a street sweeper. When I told him I had collected some WTC dust, and did he know of anywhere to find any, he mentioned the curbside next to the Deutsche Bank. In 2009, the guy told me that he had to clean this particular curb as a part of his normal route, and some of it would be impossible to clean. He said then he'd have to call his supervisor.

Yep. The Deutsche Bank was still fuming and stinking all these years later.

Read this article about how they had to shut down the deconstruction efforts (again) now due to the accumulation of "smoke". I guess that people who don't study this stuff closely might read this and say, "No problem here. Everything seems exactly how it should be."

I see several problems with this news article. 1)Why was smoke accumulating in a dead building, so much smoke, in fact, that they had to install smoke removal equipment? Someone tell me they, personally, know of a dead building, almost entirely gutted, no activity going on in this building, but so much "smoke" that you had to put in smoke removal equipment? This isn't normal. Smoke, or fumes of any kind, are evidence of an ongoing chemical reaction.

2) Why did the smoke removal equipment break? Is it perhaps that it was attempting to remove something that wasn't smoke? If, as I say, the WTC dust was made of a large proportion of iron, which a piece of smoke removal equipment might not be equipped to remove from the air? Smoke is generally carbonaceous, made of carbon. It isn't generally made of iron.

Maybe because the demolition contractor was trying to abate hazmat and decontstruct the building simultaneously.

ETA: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/n...l?ref=deutschebankbuilding130libertystreetnyc
 
Last edited:
I use my sense of smell all the time in my profession! Don't be ridiculous.

I'd wager that forensics and fire investigators use their sense of smell all the time, too, and that they'd have a better idea which smells at a disaster scene are inexplicable.

Just a thought.
 
Maybe because the demolition contractor was trying to abate hazmat and decontstruct the building simultaneously.

ETA: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/n...l?ref=deutschebankbuilding130libertystreetnyc

From that article. Ahem:
Once the concrete is stripped away, ironworkers will mount scissor lifts and use acetylene torches to cut the steel beams. At any one time, there will be four to eight cutting teams. The work site will be surrounded by fire blankets and fire guards armed with water hoses or extinguishers to put out any flames from molten steel, or slag.

I wonder where all that smoke was coming from Tracy???

I find it funny that you say there was no activity in the building, yet it was in the process of deconstruction. Did you actually live down there? I would call deconstruction a form of activity.
 
I'd wager that forensics and fire investigators use their sense of smell all the time, too, and that they'd have a better idea which smells at a disaster scene are inexplicable.

Just a thought.

I bet she just smelled the torches. It smells pretty bad. Acetylene has a funky smell when you light it alone (then you slowly add the oxygen to get a good flame). It burns kinda dirty too (acetylene alone). Once you start cutting, you get all sorts of smells depending on what you're cutting and what it's painted with, coated in, or had once contained (like pipes).
 
I got to know a guy who was a street sweeper. When I told him I had collected some WTC dust, and did he know of anywhere to find any, he mentioned the curbside next to the Deutsche Bank. In 2009, the guy told me that he had to clean this particular curb as a part of his normal route, and some of it would be impossible to clean. He said then he'd have to call his supervisor.

Yep. The Deutsche Bank was still fuming and stinking all these years later.

Read this article about how they had to shut down the deconstruction efforts (again) now due to the accumulation of "smoke". I guess that people who don't study this stuff closely might read this and say, "No problem here. Everything seems exactly how it should be."

I see several problems with this news article. 1)Why was smoke accumulating in a dead building, so much smoke, in fact, that they had to install smoke removal equipment? Someone tell me they, personally, know of a dead building, almost entirely gutted, no activity going on in this building, but so much "smoke" that you had to put in smoke removal equipment? This isn't normal. Smoke, or fumes of any kind, are evidence of an ongoing chemical reaction.

2) Why did the smoke removal equipment break? Is it perhaps that it was attempting to remove something that wasn't smoke? If, as I say, the WTC dust was made of a large proportion of iron, which a piece of smoke removal equipment might not be equipped to remove from the air? Smoke is generally carbonaceous, made of carbon. It isn't generally made of iron.

No one cares. Prove the dust samples or your smell were inconsistent with plane impacts and resulting fires. No one cares about your claims to be a scientist either so save your silly little claims about expertise.
 
I bet she just smelled the torches. It smells pretty bad. Acetylene has a funky smell when you light it alone (then you slowly add the oxygen to get a good flame). It burns kinda dirty too (acetylene alone). Once you start cutting, you get all sorts of smells depending on what you're cutting and what it's painted with, coated in, or had once contained (like pipes).
This is a far more likely source for the funny smell and explains it well. I always used to like the smell when arc welding, yes us metallurgists are odd!

I think that if you've never smelt oxyacetylene torches cutting steel then that smell is going to appear odd. Most people don't build absurd theories based on it though.
 
Right. None of the persons with forensics training who lived in Manhattan or worked around Ground Zero thought that the smell was unusual enough that perhaps the towers turned to foam or something.

Because they're not as insightful or well-trained as Tracy.

'Cause she knows smells, man. She knows smells. Forensics or fire investigators know nothing about smells around a disaster area, but Dr. Tracy? She knows.

Forensic investigators are NOT trained to investigate and describe previously unknown phenomena. They take samples and do tests, but those tests are already prescribed. You buy kits from a manufacturer. This isn't that type of thing.

On the subject of fire fighters, there are at least 343 fire fighters who got it wrong. They were acting as if they were dealing with a fire, and they lost their lives because of this mistake.
 
A traditional fire includes combustion.
You've never studied any chemistry have you? If you had you'd realise what a silly statement this is. You language is not from someone who has studied chemistry to a higher level and evidenced by your lack of understanding.

Fire is the rapid oxidation of a material in the exothermic chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light, and various reaction products.

Fire by definition includes the chemical process of combustion, there's no traditional or untraditional about it.
 
Or ground glass, asbestos and other things that were in those buildings. I didn't smell "iron" do you have some kind of super nose?

ETA: Before you said nobody (not even you) could identify the strange smell, yet now you're saying you were sniffing iron?

:rolleyes:

That's how science goes. You don't know the answer to something. You investigate. If you're lucky and smart, you end up with an answer, as I have.
 
On the subject of fire fighters, there are at least 343 fire fighters who got it wrong. They were acting as if they were dealing with a fire, and they lost their lives because of this mistake.
You are a disgrace.
 
I'd wager that forensics and fire investigators use their sense of smell all the time, too, and that they'd have a better idea which smells at a disaster scene are inexplicable.

Just a thought.

Those people are not trained to investigate previously unknown phenomena. They are trained to investigate fires. If, as I'm saying, what happened at the WTC wasn't a fire, then their expertise would not enable them to come to the correct conclusion.
 
From that article. Ahem:


I wonder where all that smoke was coming from Tracy???

I find it funny that you say there was no activity in the building, yet it was in the process of deconstruction. Did you actually live down there? I would call deconstruction a form of activity.

Eh. Smoke removal equipment is not generally used when employing acetylene torches. You just don't need it. And it doesn't explain why the smoke removal equipment failed.
 
I bet she just smelled the torches. It smells pretty bad. Acetylene has a funky smell when you light it alone (then you slowly add the oxygen to get a good flame). It burns kinda dirty too (acetylene alone). Once you start cutting, you get all sorts of smells depending on what you're cutting and what it's painted with, coated in, or had once contained (like pipes).

You might be forgetting that the Deutsche Bank smell matched the WTC stench. The WTC wasn't undergoing a heck of a lot of acetylene torch treatment on Day 2. Mostly it was fire fighting efforts at that time. And heavy rain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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