Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,189
And destroy the evidence!?
I suggest taking lot of photos. Then spam them around the net, claiming some kind of imaginary weapon caused your house to get dusty.
And destroy the evidence!?
I suggest taking lot of photos. Then spam them around the net, claiming some kind of imaginary weapon caused your house to get dusty.
The top one looks like an ordinary clinker out of a coal-fired furnace.Here is a zero magnification view and a 100X magnification view of some WTC dust.
It's 100ft across.
Dusty is such an amateur that she doesn't realise that the convention is to put a steel rule next the sample so the reader can gage size.
The top one looks like an ordinary clinker out of a coal-fired furnace.
Do you see the two colors?
I'm not a photographer! I didn't take these images, and I didn't pay for these images to be taken. When you ask someone to take images as a favor, you sort of have to accept what you get.
It shows the point. Foamed metallic WTC dust made up (largely) of iron fragments. If I had some funding (aside from my own income), I'd have better pics, but those that I have still tell the story.

I did. I saw two different layers with two different shades. One darker than the other. You scraped this off a ledge, right?
I have an initial suggestion: One layer is typical city grit and grime, built up over many years. The other layer is dissimilar because of an event which threw into the air a lot of dust and dirt of a different consistency than typical, and built up a thick layer in a short time.
There's a hypothesis. How would you use your science skills to go about confirming or refuting it?
Foamed metallic dust...
![]()
![]()
![]()
A perfect summary of the JREF 9/11 subforum, circa 2013.You laugh, but I'm serious.
A perfect summary of the JREF 9/11 subforum, circa 2013.
I'm not a photographer! I didn't take these images, and I didn't pay for these images to be taken. When you ask someone to take images as a favor, you sort of have to accept what you get.
It shows the point. Foamed metallic WTC dust made up (largely) of iron fragments. If I had some funding (aside from my own income), I'd have better pics, but those that I have still tell the story.
You laugh, but I'm serious.
The material ended up a foam because of the nature of the iron fragments. They have sharp edges. They don't compact as well as smooth, round crystals might.
x1000So your friend doesn't accept McDonald's gift cards in exchange for favors?I'm not a photographer! I didn't take these images, and I didn't pay for these images to be taken. When you ask someone to take images as a favor, you sort of have to accept what you get.
It shows the point. Foamed metallic WTC dust made up (largely) of iron fragments. If I had some funding (aside from my own income), I'd have better pics, but those that I have still tell the story.

Been done already. Street dust samples collected, analyzed, compared. Nope. It ain't street dust.
You laugh, but I'm serious.
The material ended up a foam because of the nature of the iron fragments. They have sharp edges. They don't compact as well as smooth, round crystals might.
Anyone? Beuller?
Why didn't you take the images? You're the frickin scientist.
Or are you a liar?
He called. He wants you to know everyone has moved on because no one in possession of their faculties believes that the towers were dustified (foamified) by a sooper-seekrit directed energy doohickey.
Do you see the two colors?