Merged The Origin of Two Different Colors of WTC Dust

[WTC Dust]

Those people probably have very limited access to the internet where there at.


Were you going for irony there?

Not at all. If you think that fire destroyed the WTC, then you are too far down the rabbit hole. I don't want to spend my time digging you out. I'd rather be doing something more immediately productive, like testing my own hypotheses.

It would be like teaching a class on evolution to dedicated Jehovah Witnesses. These people have heard over and over again since they were little children that evolution doesn't happen, etc. Teaching to a hostile crowd isn't productive. The students have to be engaged and ready.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You might not remember, but there are some good reasons to suspect that the DNA is bona fide human DNA, and not a contaminant of any other species.

How do you intend to prove whether you are right or wrong about that? How many years do you intend to sit on it before you do so?

And if you do finally manage to extract DNA of a real 9/11 victim from your sample, what then? You will have a macabre memento of 9/11. But so what?

 

[Resume]

Not at all. If you think that fire destroyed the WTC, then you are too far down the rabbit hole. I don't want to spend my time digging you out. I'd rather be doing something more immediately productive, like testing my own hypotheses.

If you think doing anything with your "hypothesis" is productive, you need a re-introduction to the word productive.

 

[phiwum]

You are mistaken about something. I said that several dozen INDEPENDENT researchers needed to be working on something in order to form a proper peer group. These people wouldn't be working for me or even on the same parts of the problem.

Whether they're dependent or independent is irrelevant.

Why would any expert researcher be interested in doing work on your dust sample, unless they had good evidence that (1) the dust is primarily from the 9/11 collapse and (2) the contents of the dust show that the event was remarkable and surprising, rather than simply a building collapse due to fire and plane crash?

People have to have good reason for devoting a significant portion of their professional career on studying your so-called evidence. So, you have to show them why your dust sample is likely to be worth their time before they begin working on it.

 

[Resume]

Not at all. If you think that fire destroyed the WTC, then you are too far down the rabbit hole.

Intentional or not, you're good at the irony thing.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'd rather be doing something more immediately productive

Excellent idea.

... like testing my own hypotheses.

Super. OK. How?

 

[DGM]

Not at all. If you think that fire destroyed the WTC, then you are too far down the rabbit hole.

Hey, I actually agree with something you said. Fire did not destroy the towers. It was fire and gravity.

Glad to see you coming around.

 

[WTC Dust]

How do you intend to prove whether you are right or wrong about that? How many years do you intend to sit on it before you do so?

And if you do finally manage to extract DNA of a real 9/11 victim from your sample, what then? You will have a macabre memento of 9/11. But so what?

Some of this DNA might be from family members who haven't recovered any remains at all of their loved ones. I'd return it to them.

If I did get a positive comparative match, it would be difficult to argue that my samples didn't come from the WTC.

 

[WTC Dust]

Whether they're dependent or independent is irrelevant.

Why would any expert researcher be interested in doing work on your dust sample, unless they had good evidence that (1) the dust is primarily from the 9/11 collapse and (2) the contents of the dust show that the event was remarkable and surprising, rather than simply a building collapse due to fire and plane crash?

People have to have good reason for devoting a significant portion of their professional career on studying your so-called evidence. So, you have to show them why your dust sample is likely to be worth their time before they begin working on it.

Nobody will be working on the WTC dust samples that I collected besides myself and my collaborators, so this is a moot point. They'd follow whatever leads interested and motivated them individually, which might not be the WTC dust, which motivates me.

 

[WTC Dust]

Excellent idea.



Super. OK. How?

Different ways.

 

[Resume]

Different ways.

I'll just bet they're different.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Different ways.

Very mysterious.

Is it a secret? Science won't accept your results if you keep your procedures secret.

 

[WTC Dust]

I'll just bet they're different.

They have to be different. Relying on only one experimental technique is
risky science.

 

[Resume]

They have to be different. Relying on only one experimental technique is
risky science.

What did science ever do to you for you to torture it so?

 

[phiwum]

Nobody will be working on the WTC dust samples that I collected besides myself and my collaborators, so this is a moot point. They'd follow whatever leads interested and motivated them individually, which might not be the WTC dust, which motivates me.

I know that you're not good at following your own conversation, but think back.

You first started fantasizing about fifty or so PhDs working on your 9/11 hypothesis when asked how you intend to determine that your "stuff" is "extremely valuable forensic evidence".

Now, you claim that the fifty or so PhDs won't be working on your dust samples at all, because that's for you and your equally imaginary "collaborators".

So, I suppose the question remains. How do you intend to show that this dust is relevant to 9/11 at all?

 

[WTC Dust]

I know that you're not good at following your own conversation, but think back.

You first started fantasizing about fifty or so PhDs working on your 9/11 hypothesis when asked how you intend to determine that your "stuff" is "extremely valuable forensic evidence".

Now, you claim that the fifty or so PhDs won't be working on your dust samples at all, because that's for you and your equally imaginary "collaborators".

So, I suppose the question remains. How do you intend to show that this dust is relevant to 9/11 at all?

You missed something, the word "independent". Several dozen independent researchers are needed to form a peer group. Sure, I'd like to lead a lab with fifty scientists working under me, but that's not what I was talking about.

 

[phiwum]

You missed something, the word "independent". Several dozen independent researchers are needed to form a peer group. Sure, I'd like to lead a lab with fifty scientists working under me, but that's not what I was talking about.

So the question remains: how do you intend to show that the dust you gathered came primarily from the WTC?

 

[swright777]

So the question remains: how do you intend to show that the dust you gathered came primarily from the WTC?

She found it after the WTC buildings were foamified. That's how she knows.

 

[Craig4]

At least I have some pics of WTC dust.

No, you have pictures of dust you claim came from the WTC. That is not the same as having WTC dust.

 

[tsig]

Nobody will be working on the WTC dust samples that I collected besides myself and my collaborators, so this is a moot point. They'd follow whatever leads interested and motivated them individually, which might not be the WTC dust, which motivates me.

Your team is going to saddle up and ride off in all directions?