Merged The Origin of Two Different Colors of WTC Dust

swright777 said:
Sorry, but her credibility was gone long ago. ;)
Click to expand...

Now now, there are ALWAYS new lows.

Today she did not seem to understand that filling a hollow aluminum container with a liquid increases the density of the object.

Tracy is a Scientist!
 
16.5 said:
Now now, there are ALWAYS new lows.

Today she did not seem to understand that filling a hollow aluminum container with a liquid increases the density of the object.

Tracy is a Scientist!
Click to expand...

I guess the unopened can of sprite I dropped on my foot today shouldn't have hurt any more than an empty one would.
:D
 
WTC Dust said:
I'm keeping some secrets.
Click to expand...



Ok. I have 100% proof that you are just lying to yourself and others about your dust, and it is, in fact, just a random collection of schmutz that can be found pretty much everywhere around NYC. Further, all my evidence has been independently verified through peer review by at least 20 organizations/people/governments/scientists. How I determined this and who confirmed it are just some things I'm keeping secret.


Are you now convinced that your dust is just a random assemblage of schmutz from around NYC? Yes or no and why.
 
WTC Dust said:
No. I've told you that I detected DNA in the dust. I've told you why I think it is human DNA (because it did not partition equally between the two main types of WTC dust).

What I'm telling you now and the take home message that I hope you are left with is that the study isn't over. I've done some tests that were easy to do.
Click to expand...

Forget the iron. I will 100% accept for the purposes of my discussion with you that you are absolutely correct about the iron, ok? The iron is utterly irrelevant.

What test or tests, basic or otherwise, did you do to confirm DNA?
 
MIKILLINI said:
Translation: I haven't tested for DNA because I don't know how to do it.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I asked whether or not the questioner had any doubts about my educational background. If you think I'm faking THAT, then no technique I would use would be good enough.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Forget the iron. I will 100% accept for the purposes of my discussion with you that you are absolutely correct about the iron, ok? The iron is utterly irrelevant.

What test or tests, basic or otherwise, did you do to confirm DNA?
Click to expand...

What do you mean "forget the iron"? It tells the story of the destruction of the WTC. I'm not going to forget it.
 
WTC Dust said:
This is exactly why I asked whether or not the questioner had any doubts about my educational background. If you think I'm faking THAT, then no technique I would use would be good enough.
Click to expand...

A properly conducted tests results are valid regardless of your educational background. So what tests did you perform to confirm the presense of DNA?
 
Last edited:
Skibum said:
A properly conducted tests results are valid regardless of your educational background. So what tests did you perform to confirm the presense of DNA?
Click to expand...

Apparently she waved her degrees at it while asking what it was and it told her. The Dust speaks.
 
WTC Dust said:
What do you mean "forget the iron"? It tells the story of the destruction of the WTC. I'm not going to forget it.
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant to the specific question I am asking you, that's why.

I've already stated that for the purposes of this question I will accept 100% that there is iron in the sample and that is significant. I'm not arguing about the iron. I'm asking how you know there is DNA in the sample?
 
WTC Dust said:
Of course, you already know that scientists never prove things. They only disprove things.

There is a casual notion that I might be able to "prove" something with science work, but that really corresponds more to the idea that I might "lend support to the idea" or "rule out competing theories", but prove something? No. Can't do it. Won't try. I'm testing out some ideas on JREF, not proving anything, and I'm not planning to prove anything any time soon in any forum. I'd need lots more money to attempt that.
Click to expand...

So there's no way for you to establish the dust came from the WTC.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
It's irrelevant to the specific question I am asking you, that's why.

I've already stated that for the purposes of this question I will accept 100% that there is iron in the sample and that is significant. I'm not arguing about the iron. I'm asking how you know there is DNA in the sample?
Click to expand...

Why do you want to know so badly?
 
WTC Dust said:
Why do you want to know so badly?
Click to expand...

Three reasons.

Firstly, and most broadly, I'm curious. It's part of the reason I come to this website to begin with, whether it be curious about religious apologetics, curious about political opinions, or curious about musical tastes of people here. I asked a question because I want to know the answer. Why does anyone ask a question?

Secondly and more specifically I'm curious about science. I always regret not going further with my science study and for basically throwing away what I did do after 16 because I was an immature little git. I am curious about what process you used.

Thirdly and finally, I want to know because if you said, for example, "I performed test A and I got results X and Y, so now I want to perform test B to clarify the results" I would have something concrete (no pun intended) that you have done that I could say yes, that supports your claims about this dust. I know you claim you don't care what anyone here thinks, but that's clearly not true or you wouldn't bother coming here. Since you do, on some level care, providing an example of a real scientific study that you have done makes the people who dismiss you offhand look less credible. If you answer honest real and straightforward questions, you look a lot better for it than if you evade all the time.

You do understand that even if you don't think you're evading the question, the fact it's a simple question you won't answer makes it look like you are, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom