Merged The Origin of Two Different Colors of WTC Dust

[WTC Dust]

So when you post something "as an authority" you are using yourself as that "authority", correct?

Relatively unpopulated fields of study are like that. It's not a rare thing. For example, take my PhD thesis. In my twenties, there were (perhaps) a few dozen people who performed this particular kind of experiment called the GTP shift. Among them, after a few years, I judged myself an expert in the technique. So did my committee. They knew I had developed an insight into the value of this experiment in the field of pharmacodynamics, and awarded me a PhD as a result. Also, they praised my technical innovations that had already been adopted by the whole pharmacology department.

It takes a lot to become a world wide expert in something, but it can be done, and I've done it before. Millette has become an expert in the WTC dust, and so has Steven Jones. Being an expert doesn't mean that every one of your conclusions is fully correct, though.

Millette didn't make a mistake in terms of the techniques that he used, but rather in a failure to incorporate his results into the larger picture of the WTC attacks. Jones is a horrible failure, but I can't say that 100% of his results are wrong. What he has done is detected iron oxide and concluded thermite.

To a certain extent, authority isn't bestowed by committee. Authority is taken by those who grab at it. I know the GTP shift better than anyone who tunes into this forum, and I know the WTC dust better than anyone who tunes into this forum. I know it better than Millette, Jones, and Wood, even. There might be somebody out there who knows the WTC dust better than me, but I don't know who that person is. Don't give me the lead authors of the USGA surveys, either, because their work suffers from the same problem that plague's Millette: it doesn't give a likely mechanism for the production of the dust from a set of steel framed buildings.

Calling the two colors of WTC dust "smoke" and "ash" based on pictures alone doesn't rise to the level of an expert opinion, just in case you were wondering.

 

[WTC Dust]

Tracy:
You talk about your education quite extensively, but very little about your work history. I understand that since arriving in New York, you have had the following occupations/avocations:

*comptroller for New York's Medical Marijuana Party
*blogger
*panhandler
*performance artist/Rainbeuax Barbie
*OWS protester
*adjunct professor at Touro College
*cross-country driver for $2,000.
*employee of a financial services firm
* Promoter of ibogaine (a naturally occurring psychoactive substance with both psychedelic and dissociative properties)

Anything else you feel we should be aware of? As you are asserting that your educational background makes you an authority, I think it make sense to see whether your employment history does so as well.

Presumably Touro College was hiring a real professor, right?

 

[Jim_MDP]

Don't give me the lead authors of the USGA surveys, either, because their work suffers from the same problem that plague's Millette: it doesn't give a likely mechanism for the production of the dust from a set of steel framed buildings.

Yeah... neither do you.

 

[WTC Dust]

OPEN QUESTION TO ALL...

I think I made it clear that I'm curious about this aspect. Can anyone expand on the bolded statement for me? Of course not mentioned is the ability to specify human DNA. That's important, I believe.

My assertion that it is human DNA isn't based on any special techniques. Rather, that the DNA doesn't partition equally between the two types of dust. There was no DNA detected in the darker dust, pretty much ruling out random contamination.

I have not experimentally determined that it is human DNA, but could do so if the funding were available. Are you offering to do a Kickstarter for me?

 

[WTC Dust]

Control?...no, what we are "experiencing" is a person on the very edge of rationality...whose very existence seems to revolve around idiotic 911 claims...who apparently does not realize just how funny her posts are.

Be my guest and ask others if you don't believe me...it's not like anyone here is actually taking what you post, seriously, no, we're all just laughing.


Call it cheap entertainment.

Glad to brighten your day!

 

[WTC Dust]

There is no "cheap", non-laboratory method for detecting/identifying DNA. Those saying differently are only displaying their ignorance.

Really? You think a bio-MacGuyver couldn't figure it out? LOL I am seriously laughing and very happy.

 

[phunk]

bio-macguyver

 

[WTC Dust]

Thanks. Can you (or anyone) answer the question the Tracy wont?

How (mechanically, not chemically) does one field test for the presence of DNA, and can you differentiate human DNA specifically?

edit - Sorry, on re-reading, I'm not sure if you're saying it's difficult/expensive or that it can not be done.

Ugh! I had a huge fight about this one time. A long term friend of mine found out about the DNA and took it upon himself to tell me that the first thing that had to be done was to confirm that it was of human origin. I'll tell you about the details later, but to get to the point, there are certain DNA testing kits that you can buy off the shelf, and this isn't one of them.

He insisted that I was a bad scientist because I didn't jump on this bandwagon. He insisted that the test was easy to find, and made several calls to biotech companies, thinking that he had gotten the right thing, but he hadn't. What is easy available is comparative tests, if you want to find out who your baby's daddy is. The human vs. all other DNA test does exist in many forms, but I don't know where to buy it.

It's the kind of thing that, faced with the requirement of doing it myself for pay in a laboratory environment, that I would just whip it up myself with the raw ingredients, many of which would be in stock already. But just by myself with my home fridge and small paycheck? No. It would not be feasible. I'd have to buy a kit with all the reagents included, and these kits are not easy to find. If I were allied with the police forensic units, I might have access to the proper test kit, but I just don't know where to buy it.

It's certainly not an easy test to find. I've looked. And, even if I did find it, there is still the issue of cost. DNA testing is very expensive. I haven't completed the other basic tests I'd like to conduct on the dust, based on financial restrictions, so I'm very unlikely to jump into DNA testing based on the cost alone. It's not a matter of figuring out what tests need to be done or how to do these tests. It's a problem of lacking the resources to do the proper job and having zero colleagues.

 

[WTC Dust]

No, I'm not saying it is impossible, but consider this...

Which would be the easiest?...bringing some very expensive/sensitive equipment to each and ever crime scene to collect DNA, or taking the DNA sample to the equipment to be evaluated?

The answer is obvious...

Are you talking about paying to get the analysis done, or is this a free thing?

 

[Jim_MDP]

My assertion that it is human DNA isn't based on any special techniques. Rather, that the DNA doesn't partition equally between the two types of dust. There was no DNA detected in the darker dust, pretty much ruling out random contamination.

I have not experimentally determined that it is human DNA, but could do so if the funding were available. Are you offering to do a Kickstarter for me?

Really? You think a bio-MacGuyver couldn't figure it out? LOL I am seriously laughing and very happy.

Pick one. Really.

You, Dr. Blevins have made, repeatedly, a couple of specific claims and at least one proposed conclusion based on your testing of the sample you have.

You have stated...

1. There is DNA in/on the lump of material we will call your sample.

2. The DNA in not consistent from one distinct material to another in/on your sample.

3. Further, the DNA is Human DNA. You have claimed to have verified this and gone on to claim that if you could match it to two or six victims through the authorities' DNA database, it would prove that your sample is from the 9/11 events.

You have made these claims. I know nothing of "foamed metal" or any process which could "dustify" a building. Don't care at the moment.

Did you or did you not verify Human DNA in/on your sample? If so, how?

Or are you changing your claims?

 

[thebicyclist]

really? You think a bio-macguyver couldn't figure it out? Lol :d i am seriously laughing and very happy.

 

[Jim_MDP]

We cross posted...

Doc, I'll apologize if it turns out you never claimed to have already confirmed human DNA, though I suspect others are searching your post right now.

I am pretty sure you claimed to have verified DNA though.

Which story is it?

 

[dafydd]

Are you talking about paying to get the analysis done, or is this a free thing?

Almost free of course. All the mainline railway stations here in Belgium have DNA testing machines, five euros a throw.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Almost free of course. All the mainline railway stations here in Belgium have DNA testing machines, five euros a throw.

I'm afraid to ask what the hell that refers to.

 

[WTC Dust]

Pick one. Really.

You, Dr. Blevins have made, repeatedly, a couple of specific claims and at least one proposed conclusion based on your testing of the sample you have.

You have stated...

1. There is DNA in/on the lump of material we will call your sample.

2. The DNA in not consistent from one distinct material to another in/on your sample.

3. Further, the DNA is Human DNA. You have claimed to have verified this and gone on to claim that if you could match it to two or six victims through the authorities' DNA database, it would prove that your sample is from the 9/11 events.

You have made these claims. I know nothing of "foamed metal" or any process which could "dustify" a building. Don't care at the moment.

Did you or did you not verify Human DNA in/on your sample? If so, how?

Or are you changing your claims?

No, you just didn't fully comprehend what I was saying. That I determined that it was human DNA based on the fact that it was not spread equally among the different WTC dust types.

Let's say a JREFer buys me a "human vs. non-human" DNA testing kit, and I test the DNA. The answer will either be human or non-human. Either way, the explanation has to account for the fact that the darker dust contains either no or very little DNA. You can't ignore this finding and call your theory complete.

Nobody before me realized there were two different types of dust. Everyone was talking about the dust as if it were monotypic. Papers have been written that supposedly are the definitive test for WTC dust, but even these people didn't figure out that there is more than one type. (Their test involves fibers, and yes, the dust does have fibers in it.)

I guess I forgot to mention the fibers as one of the reasons that I think what I have is genuine WTC dust. Somebody wrote a paper and said that the WTC dust has fibers in it, implying that if it didn't have fibers in it that it wasn't real WTC dust. Whatever. My samples have those fibers. Not in equal proportion, mind you. I repeat that the darker dust is almost entirely iron fragments. There aren't proportionally very many fibers in the darker dust, but they are there.

 

[WTC Dust]

We cross posted...

Doc, I'll apologize if it turns out you never claimed to have already confirmed human DNA, though I suspect others are searching your post right now.

I am pretty sure you claimed to have verified DNA though.

Which story is it?

You're giving me two somewhat strange choices, so I pick neither.

I have concluded that it is DNA, and that it is also human DNA. Future tests might prove me wrong.

 

[Jim_MDP]

No, you just didn't fully comprehend what I was saying. That I determined that it was human DNA based on the fact that it was not spread equally among the different WTC dust types.

Is this humor?

 

[Jim_MDP]

I think a "this **** just got real" meme would work here.

I'm off to the store, I'll pick this up again in a couple hours.

 

[Dash80]

I did mention gypsum and ceramics.

Both types of dust are filled with iron fragments. The darker type is almost nothing but iron fragments. It's a difference.

No you said the core was "nothing but iron," it wasn't.
The darker "dust/fumes" you point to was smoke and ash, so it's irrelevant anyway.

 

[WTC Dust]

The truth is that I would be mortified to be proven wrong on any one of a number of my findings. If the stuff I found ended up being regular New York schmutz, I'd be embarrassed and never forget it.

I'm going out on a pretty long limb here. I'm saying a magnetic weapon of some kind caused the most of the steel and almost all of the non-steel components of the WTC to shatter into tiny fragments at ambient temperature. This is radical! This process is not known in regular channels.

The only thing I think will convince the public that this technology exists is if it happens again, which by the way is the reason I think the perps haven't used the weapon again. Doing so would tip off the public. They have gotten away with it so far, but it's only been 11.5 years. People still remember. They don't know a darn thing about what actually happened on 9/11, but they do have memories of those buildings going away like that.

I've added some more data to this conversation. The first image is a sample of some WTC dust (or claimed WTC dust) that I did not collect. I got it third hand from somebody who knew somebody who had a truck parked a few blocks away from the WTC. The dust has LOTS of fibers and some iron fragments. This sample got me thinking. If the farther away you got from the building, the more fibers there are, and if the bits and pieces that used to be the perimeter of the building moved physically farther away from Ground Zero than the bits and pieces from the interior, maybe these fibers are what remains of glass after you zap it.

The second image is layered chip. Steven Jones makes a big deal about these layered chips. He even altered his latest version of the thermite theory involving nano-thermite to add in a spray-on element. Ugh. Anyway, I found some of these layered chips, and here's a pic of one.

The third pic is of some dust at Ground Zero, with dark and light. The last is a pic of the meteor, where the light "rock" sticks to a curled up, swollen and foamed, steel beam that is mostly dark in color.