Merged The Origin of Two Different Colors of WTC Dust

MarkCorrigan said:
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?
Click to expand...


I've addressed the question. I haven't evaded it. I told you that I do have some secrets that will remain secret. Some of my results fall into this category. Some things that were secret in the past are no longer secret, but that's how secrets go sometimes.

It's not like I don't respond. I've just decided to focus on a particular style of presentation. I'm not giving you the technical specs on anything I've done, not because I'm hiding anything or evading your question. It's because I want to present this data in the way I want to present it, and the way that I've chosen to present it doesn't require very many technical specs.

I've done this because, like I told you before, I'm teaching 9/11 to dunderheads who don't understand science. You will notice that I avoid any detailed technical specifications in my writings on 9/11, because it's not aimed at a technical audience. You might want to know some of the technical specs, but that is neither here nor there.

As long as you're not actively denying my education and credentials in biomedical science, you can pretty much count on my ability to study DNA. The DNA hasn't even become part of my published work, but I have told JREF about it, specifically to address the contamination issue. It isn't found in the darker dust, but it is found in the lighter dust. Most of the victims were near the perimeter of the building, and rather few of them went to the elevator shafts. Sorta gruesome. Haven't yet decided how to deal with this issue, but I don't mind talking about it here.
 
Secrets? Any time you feel you need to keep secrets about your work and how you obtained your results, you pretty much lose any credibility, not that you have had much to begin with. Good lunch with your "research", I'm done with this thread.
 
No technical specifications are found in silly steel foam fantasy

WTC Dust said:
... I've done this because, like I told you before, I'm teaching 9/11 to dunderheads who don't understand science. You will notice that I avoid any detailed technical specifications in my writings on 9/11, because it's not aimed at a technical audience. You might want to know some of the technical specs, but that is neither here nor there.

...
Click to expand...
Yes you avoid technical specifications because they don't exist in your silly disrespectful idiotic fantasy.

You can't produce technical specifications for your fantasy. Why? Fantasy.
 
beachnut said:
Yes you avoid technical specifications because they don't exist in your silly disrespectful idiotic fantasy.

You can't produce technical specifications for your fantasy. Why? Fantasy.
Click to expand...

I'm with Dusty on this one beachnut.

Tracy's cereal box with magnet on a ribbon test... GENIUS! How can we "dunderheads" possibly compete with such dazzling intellect!
:p
;)
 
WTC Dust said:
I've addressed the question. I haven't evaded it. I told you that I do have some secrets that will remain secret. Some of my results fall into this category. Some things that were secret in the past are no longer secret, but that's how secrets go sometimes.
Click to expand...

No Doc... no, no, no.

I don't care about your results in particular, and you've already told us your results in general. To wit... DNA in the sample, higher in one part versus the other. Don't care... keep your secrets and surprises until you've secured lab testing if you insist.

That was not the question.

I asked... How did you test for the presence of DNA in your sample?

You would be disingenuous to claim the answer would be too complex to give here. A broad explanation would suffice, I think. Please... no excuses.
 
Jim_MDP said:
I asked... How did you test for the presence of DNA in your sample?
Click to expand...

She likely sent in two samples in one of those drug store paternity test kits. They came back as not being the same (and leaving the testers scratching their heads).

She's a PhD so she knows how to interpret this stuff. She probably thinks we'll laugh. :rolleyes:
 
Dash80 said:
I'm with Dusty on this one beachnut.

Tracy's cereal box with magnet on a ribbon test... GENIUS! How can we "dunderheads" possibly compete with such dazzling intellect!
:p
;)
Click to expand...

Teaching is a skill. I waited and planned my strategy long ago, and I'm sticking to it. Until I am properly situated in a research laboratory being paid to do this work (and this might never happen), I'm doing this research on my own terms. This includes what I present.

There must be some reason beyond the one specified that makes you all keep asking how I detected DNA. Can someone elaborate? As long as you agree that I am a biomedical scientist as described, why should it matter to you how I do the DNA work. Do you think that any of you would be able to critique my techniques?

The magnetic demonstration was different. I explained every bit of the technical specs at great length because it was such a simple experiment, obvious to the eye. That's how I'm keeping my focus. I'm not asking anyone to "trust me".

The DNA work is not a part of the "big deal" that I keep talking about, the elevated iron. The DNA work is only something I chat about, not what I stand on as a cornerstone of my work. You don't need to know the specs, unless you are accusing me of falsifying my credentials, in which case you are not a proper audience.

However, if there was a really good reason that would serve my purposes for "spilling the beans" on this topic and any other topic, I'd do it. Right now, I can't see how it serves my purpose.
 
Jim_MDP said:
No Doc... no, no, no.

I don't care about your results in particular, and you've already told us your results in general. To wit... DNA in the sample, higher in one part versus the other. Don't care... keep your secrets and surprises until you've secured lab testing if you insist.

That was not the question.

I asked... How did you test for the presence of DNA in your sample?

You would be disingenuous to claim the answer would be too complex to give here. A broad explanation would suffice, I think. Please... no excuses.
Click to expand...

Tell me how it would serve my purposes to answer questions of a technical nature, and if I agree, I'll do it. Otherwise, I have secrets. Can't show them all the goodies at one time, now.
 
There is no technical side to this fantasy.

WTC Dust said:
Tell me how it would serve my purposes to answer questions of a technical nature, ...
Click to expand...
It can't help you to get technical, that would refute your fantasy. You have steel foam at low temperature. To turn the steel in the WTC to foam would take magic; there is no technical nature to your fantasy, it is BS, big talk, no substance.


WTC Dust said:
and if I agree, I'll do it. ...
Click to expand...
You have a fantasy, you can't answer technical questions; you can't agree, you can't do it.

WTC Dust said:
... , I have secrets. ...
Click to expand...
Too late, you said the WTC turned to steel foam, which is nonsense. No secret you can't produce the technical side to nonsense.


WTC Dust said:
Can't show them all the goodies at one time, now.
Click to expand...
You don't have goodies, you have woo.


There is no technical side to this fantasy, just more talk.
 
WTC Dust said:
Tell me how it would serve my purposes to answer questions of a technical nature, and if I agree, I'll do it. Otherwise, I have secrets. Can't show them all the goodies at one time, now.
Click to expand...

You have yet to show ANYTHING yet.

Your attitude shows you're no scientist. Scientists do not behave like petulant children.
 
WTC Dust said:
I've done this because, like I told you before, I'm teaching 9/11 to dunderheads who don't understand science.
Click to expand...

Indeed, yesterday you proved that you don't understand density.

For a scientist, you make one hell of a pan handler, RainBeaux Barbie
 
Dash80 said:
You have yet to show ANYTHING yet.

Your attitude shows you're no scientist. Scientists do not behave like petulant children.
Click to expand...

Even children do not have an over inflated view of self importance. So I wouldn't give her that much credit. Like I have said When a five year old facepalms your "science" you may want to revisit your career choice.
 
WTC Dust said:
Tell me how it would serve my purposes to answer questions of a technical nature, and if I agree, I'll do it.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works...you make a claim, and you either prove that claim correct, or you don't.

...but lets not kid ourselves as to why you can't answer questions of a technical nature...and that is because you are incapable of answering those questions.

Go ahead...prove me wrong.
 
WTC Dust said:
Teaching is a skill.
Click to expand...

I thought your background was in bio-medical...are you also claiming to possess a teaching credential?


...and you can go ahead and lie if you like...no one will know, and I don't particularly care...
 
WTC Dust said:
Tell me how it would serve my purposes to answer questions of a technical nature, and if I agree, I'll do it. Otherwise, I have secrets. Can't show them all the goodies at one time, now.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll take one last stab at this...

I'm a quite intelligent fifty(cough) year old with minor technical degrees but ZERO education in bio-chem. I don't need a technical scientific description about this from you. You gave a description of lab DNA testing you would like to have done, several days ago, so we know you didn't do that.

I presume you performed some test at home which would, I think, be classed as some type of field testing.

My honest query is...
How does one field test for DNA and beyond that... human DNA?

Both are claims that you have made. I couldn't even make a guess as to whether that is even possible.

I don't want the chemistry, just the broad strokes.

If you have some new technique to be kept secret, I would guess that would make you quite wealthy, so I presume that is not the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom