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 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.
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 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.
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".
