Merged The Origin of Two Different Colors of WTC Dust

[WTC Dust]

Is this humor?

No. It is certainly a test for contamination, and a human vs. non-human test by proxy. I could be proved wrong at a later date with a better test. Do you have any ideas?

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

The core of the WTC was iron and empty space and almost nothing else.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Back for a minute...

No. It is certainly a test for contamination, and a human vs. non-human test by proxy. I could be proved wrong at a later date with a better test. Do you have any ideas?

What! Are you joking?

Now your presumption of human DNA is predicated on your assumption of where the people were standing relative to the core prior to the collapse?

And that itself is based on your wild ass guess that the dust from the core versus the dust from the outer areas would be distinguishable by color AND remain separate before landing and hardening along with the dustified metal schmutz?

Am I close? Is this really the story you're going with?

 

[Jim_MDP]

Well, waiting for Tracy isn't working. Off to the store, back in a bit.

 

[The Big Dog]

Presumably Touro College was hiring a real professor, right?

No. A "real" professor has tenure, etc. An Associate professor is on the tenure track, an adjunct professor? Not a real professor. In any event, you advised that you had been fired from that position.... so?

So, we agree about your relevant job history!

Excellent.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's funny how memory can play tricks on us. For example, consider the two distinct layers of WTC dust claimed to make up the sample in question. The obvious implication of layering is that one layer was deposited before the other. But I seem to recall each tower falling down entirely within a matter of seconds. How curious if one part of the building somehow decided to settle in a layer before the rest of the building.

 

[MIKILLINI]

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

Oh I absolutely understand what those words mean

The more you ignore people who have done studies, have experience in scientific fields, are professionals in engineering, plane crash research, etc., the more I feel that way about you.
You can't even answer Jim_MDP's request...Because your DNA testing is questionable....

 

[Jim_MDP]

Well, that took longer than I thought it would. 11pm on the East coast, probably wont hear from Tracy till tomorrow.

It's funny how memory can play tricks on us. For example, consider the two distinct layers of WTC dust claimed to make up the sample in question. The obvious implication of layering is that one layer was deposited before the other. But I seem to recall each tower falling down entirely within a matter of seconds. How curious if one part of the building somehow decided to settle in a layer before the rest of the building.

That's a good point, but it's actually worse than that.

TWO towers means FOUR separate dispersals. How did the two dark and two light masses coalesce into just one of each?

 

[Jim_MDP]

Oh I absolutely understand what those words mean

The more you ignore people who have done studies, have experience in scientific fields, are professionals in engineering, plane crash research, etc., the more I feel that way about you.
You can't even answer Jim_MDP's request...Because your DNA testing is questionable....

I'm serious about this, but I need you folks to say if I'm misunderstanding just what she is claiming. Hell, after her last bit about her friend telling her about some kit or other, I'm not sure if she did any test at all. What did she actually say?

What! Are you joking?

Now your presumption of human DNA is predicated on your assumption of where the people were standing relative to the core prior to the collapse?

And that itself is based on your wild ass guess that the dust from the core versus the dust from the outer areas would be distinguishable by color AND remain separate before landing and hardening along with the dustified metal schmutz?

Am I close? Is this really the story you're going with?

 

[brazenlilraisin]

You nailed it.

 

[LashL]

I'm serious about this, but I need you folks to say if I'm misunderstanding just what she is claiming. Hell, after her last bit about her friend telling her about some kit or other, I'm not sure if she did any test at all. What did she actually say?

It's a safe bet that she hasn't done any legitimate testing whatsoever that would be sufficient to identify DNA, human or otherwise, viz the "dust sample" that she claims to have scooped up some eight years after the fact along with cigarette butts and such in a location that has no relevance to the events of 9/11.

She has provided nothing at all to suggest that this "sample" is in any way related to the events of 9/11. She has not done any testing of any sort that would even remotely be considered scientific or appropriate or reliable for the stated purpose.

 

[Jim_MDP]

You nailed it.

Thanks. I'm still honestly unsure what is and is not possible. As mentioned upthread, this is NOT some CSI, whip out the UV and check for bodily fluids. This is DNA damnit and I don't know what Tracy is even claiming at this point.

It's a safe bet that she hasn't done any legitimate testing whatsoever that would be sufficient to identify DNA, human or otherwise, viz the "dust sample" that she claims to have scooped up some eight years after the fact along with cigarette butts and such in a location that has no relevance to the events of 9/11.

She has provided nothing at all to suggest that this "sample" is in any way related to the events of 9/11. She has not done any testing of any sort that would even remotely be considered scientific or appropriate or reliable for the stated purpose.

This is something of a problem for Tracy IMO. I think connecting schmutz ball DNA to the victims database is the only way for her to prove she has anything at all 9/11 related. Foamed steel... really? I think she should stop ignoring the obvious reason why she is the only person claiming that little nugget.

Anyway... I just wanted to try to make clear that I was not trying to derail her dust thread. The DNA claims are hers and the schmutz ball is made of the dust (according to her).

 

[Muc]

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.

How on earth would that fact lead to any conclusion more extravagant than that one substance contains some kind of unknown DNA of unknown source and quality and for some as of yet unknown reason the other one doesn't? That they are maybe not even related to each other? Is this once again the result of some kind of backwards reasoning, starting with the largely unsupported assumption that both "dust" samples simply have to originate from the same event, because otherwise they are worthless for your purpose?

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 don't know if this paper that "somebody wrote" is this here or this or this one, but while all of them do say that WTC dust contains a large amount of "man-made vitreous fibers", they certainly do not imply that fibers = WTC dust. The presence of fibers in dust is nothing out of the ordinary. If someone would be trying to confirm if his dust sample (or some of it) likely originates from the WTC collapse, he would be mainly looking for slag wool and - to a lesser extent - rock wool and soda-lime glass, in combination with a relatively large amount of gypsum and cement particles (which is, btw, a much simpler and more realistic method than DNA testing, of all things). You, on the other hand, don't appear to have confirmed at all what kind of fibers you have in your sample(s) and how high their approx. relative amount is, nor does it look like you have the possibilities to do so.

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.

You merely assume that it is "almost entirely iron fragments" after looking at some pictures that show metallic looking particles and some relatively small amount of what appears to be iron oxide. Of course you never established how much of it actually is iron and how high it's amount is in comparision with other materials present in the same chunk (which remain mostly unidentified, too). If it actually was "almost entirely" iron, btw, your magnet experiment probably would have shown a much more conclusive result than the one visible in that video.

Still, all of the above is hardly relevant anyway, because - as many people here have pointed out already - even if it was proven that at least some of your "dust" did originate from the WTC collapse - which is perfectly possible - this doesn't get you any closer to proving anything regarding your dustyfoaming energy weapon theory. It would just mean that you possess some dirt that contains a certain amount of WTC dust and maybe also a significant amount of metal/iron particles of undetermined origin.

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.

I bolded the part that alone makes your assumption pretty much worthless. Not only is this process not known - it is not even shown that it is theoretically possible or that the results would look anything like your "dust", so all this unbased speculation is pointless to begin with.

One of the many problems here is, of course, the "ambient temperature" part, which you apparently only insist on because for some strange reason you refuse to accept that a significant amount of ca. 200 office building stories worth of paper, of which probably less than 10% were subjected to major fires before the collapses, could remain unburned.

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.

This so-called "Meteor" is actually most commonly called "Compression" by people who have access to it, which pretty much hints at what it is already - parts of several stories of an undetermined WTC tower, compressed to a height of a few feet and apparently baked in the rubble pile. According to people who have seen it, there are not only concrete and steel, but also bathroom tiles, plumbing and pieces of carbonized paper visible in it, and according to one of the preservationists of Hangar 17, "every inch" has been examined and photographed by them, so your (comparably) uninformed photo analysis identifying "foamed steel" in some low resolution picture of it is pretty much worthless, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with "science".

 

[tsig]

It's a safe bet that she hasn't done any legitimate testing whatsoever that would be sufficient to identify DNA, human or otherwise, viz the "dust sample" that she claims to have scooped up some eight years after the fact along with cigarette butts and such in a location that has no relevance to the events of 9/11.

She has provided nothing at all to suggest that this "sample" is in any way related to the events of 9/11. She has not done any testing of any sort that would even remotely be considered scientific or appropriate or reliable for the stated purpose.

Apparently in those eight years the only thing that generated dust in NYC was the collapse of the towers.

 

[swright777]

...
He insisted that I was a bad scientist
...

I like your friend.

 

[Dash80]

The core of the WTC was iron and empty space and almost nothing else.

Can you point out the almost entirely iron and empty space in this floor plan please?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Nistncstar1-1-fig2-4.png

 

[WTC Dust]

Back for a minute...



What! Are you joking?

Now your presumption of human DNA is predicated on your assumption of where the people were standing relative to the core prior to the collapse?

And that itself is based on your wild ass guess that the dust from the core versus the dust from the outer areas would be distinguishable by color AND remain separate before landing and hardening along with the dustified metal schmutz?

Am I close? Is this really the story you're going with?

You're using some of the right words, but you don't have the full concept yet.

I have CONCLUDED that the DNA is human based on a single test. The test was an easy test for contamination. The null hypothesis in this case was the notion that both WTC dust types would be equally contaminated. I disproved this hypothesis with the determination that the DNA did not, in fact, partition equally between the two dust types.

One of the assumptions for the contamination test is that post-deposition contamination would affect both dust types equally. Essentially, if the DNA came from rat urine or pigeon feces, then both types of dust would contain DNA equally. They don't, or at least my results to date indicate that the DNA does not partition equally. If you'd like to talk about this assumption, we could do so. Do you really think that a rat would stop to pee only on certain types of the WTC dust?

It's important to get the nomenclature correct, because words have meanings. The "human DNA" thing isn't a presumption of any sort. It is the end of the line. It's a conclusion. Calling it a presumption implies things that aren't true about it, that it hasn't been tested, when it is a conclusion. It is the logic that follows from the results of the test.

You're not going to be able to change the results. The DNA isn't located in both types of WTC dust, or at the very least, there is a large difference in amounts of DNA between the two types. I might change my conclusions, however, if better test results come along or if my presumption about the rat pee is proved inaccurate.

The thing about where the people were standing is not really an assumption, as there are many images of people standing near the exterior of the building. I "assume" that those people didn't run towards the elevator shafts in between the time when they were photographed hanging outside the window ledges and the building's ultimate demise.

Talking about the DNA is morbid, and depressing. If the DNA were in both types of dust, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and I almost wish that's how it turned out.

Nevertheless, to properly refute me, you have to fully understand what I'm saying. If you rephrase what you think I'm saying, and you get it wrong, then you aren't ready to refute me. You have to be able to correctly understand my views, or you aren't refuting them. You're refuting something that isn't my view.

The answer to your last question is, "No. That's not the story I'm going with."

 

[WTC Dust]

No. A "real" professor has tenure, etc. An Associate professor is on the tenure track, an adjunct professor? Not a real professor. In any event, you advised that you had been fired from that position.... so?

So, we agree about your relevant job history!

Excellent.

You're right about adjunct professoring being a crap job. I took it for the experience. I did not like the low pay and irritating students. It was fun teaching the hard working students.

 

[WTC Dust]

It's funny how memory can play tricks on us. For example, consider the two distinct layers of WTC dust claimed to make up the sample in question. The obvious implication of layering is that one layer was deposited before the other. But I seem to recall each tower falling down entirely within a matter of seconds. How curious if one part of the building somehow decided to settle in a layer before the rest of the building.

In 2006, you could still see both types of foam in the basement of the World Trade Center. Check out the image. You can tell it is 2006 (or later) because the new WTC 7 was finished at the time that the picture was taken.

Imagine. 5 years later, and they still had dark and light colored dust in the basement of the WTC.

 

[Dash80]

In 2006, you could still see both types of foam in the basement of the World Trade Center. Check out the image. You can tell it is 2006 (or later) because the new WTC 7 was finished at the time that the picture was taken.

Imagine. 5 years later, and they still had dark and light colored dust in the basement of the WTC.

FOAM?! SERIOUSLY?

This HAS to be a joke! You can't possible believe this!