• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged The Origin of Two Different Colors of WTC Dust

Jack by the hedge said:
I'm trying to glean whatever the sarcastic "Mmm hmm" means, but I must admit it's a struggle. Do you have a different definition of "bedrock" to everyone else? Do you think that bedrock is something only ever found deep underground? Can any scientifically-minded New Yorker be unaware that shallow lying, hard bedrock is precisely why Manhattan was a good place to build very tall buildings, or that bedrock is exposed in parts of Central Park? (I'm not even American and I knew that.)

We're all now very much aware that the picture you posted is not of the "basement" of the WTC. It's not under the former WTC towers at all. it's a new excavation uncovering a bedrock surface which hasn't seen the light of day for over 40,000 years.

So would you now like to revise your "Mmm hmm" assessment?
Click to expand...

 
WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can't believe no one has commented on this.

There are fibers in the dust (how unusual!), so a perfectly sensible working hypothesis is: maybe that's what happens to glass when you zap it with a steel foamification ray!

As I write this, the morning sun is streaming in my window, illuminating the floating dust particles. Even the naked eye reveals a great amount of fibers in them. I wonder which nearby greenhouse has been zapped.
 
twinstead said:
Good God the woman thinks that no planes hit the WTC buildings. Exactly what do you expect?
Click to expand...

A retraction would be nice. A nutty but sincere conviction of the existence of magical faking technologies is one thing, but selecting pictures with very clear content and context and lying about them is another thing entirely.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
A retraction would be nice. A nutty but sincere conviction of the existence of magical faking technologies is one thing, but selecting pictures with very clear content and context and lying about them is another thing entirely.
Click to expand...

That's what she does! That's all she does!

/Kyle Reese
 
MIKILLINI said:
See the hilited part Tracy? What kind of weaponry are you talking about? Are you an expert in advanced weaponry? Can you prove that you have experience in advanced weaponry to back up that claim?
Click to expand...

No, but I have a passing familiarity with every widely known weapon system.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I read the captions. The journalist thought it was strange to imagine an ice age landscape being uncovered in the midst of a modern city. But that is very clearly what it is and the journalist was right; the juxtaposition of an ancient rock feature and a modern skyscraper is very curious. The photograph you called "WTC dust" was very clearly geological and now that I've see where that picture came from and seen the pictures of the whole plunge pool it's extremely clear that this is rock carved smooth by water.

Have you registered the information that people have been giving you about where this plunge pool is? It's not under where the WTC towers were. It's not previously been excavated. It's a new excavation and a new discovery. It does not and it could not contain material from the collapsed WTC.

So I feel I need to say how very much I do not appreciate your responding to my post with a picture of Manhattan bedrock and proclaiming it as "WTC dust". That is a ridiculous falsehood. I am left only to wonder whether you deliberately lied to me or whether you are so obsessed by your fantasies that you are fooling yourself. Neither option is impressive.
Click to expand...

The WTC dust went a lot of places. Maybe even into the basement.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I'm trying to glean whatever the sarcastic "Mmm hmm" means, but I must admit it's a struggle. Do you have a different definition of "bedrock" to everyone else? Do you think that bedrock is something only ever found deep underground? Can any scientifically-minded New Yorker be unaware that shallow lying, hard bedrock is precisely why Manhattan was a good place to build very tall buildings, or that bedrock is exposed in parts of Central Park? (I'm not even American and I knew that.)

We're all now very much aware that the picture you posted is not of the "basement" of the WTC. It's not under the former WTC towers at all. it's a new excavation uncovering a bedrock surface which hasn't seen the light of day for over 40,000 years.

So would you now like to revise your "Mmm hmm" assessment?
Click to expand...

Mmm hmm.
 
WTC Dust said:
The WTC dust went a lot of places. Maybe even into the basement.
Click to expand...

Tracy? there was no basement there. You follow? The scientific article written by real scientists said that the till had been there for 50,000 years.

50,000 years is a long time. That was even before you moved to New York!

Let me know if you need help understanding it.
 
Tracy, I posted video of the excavations below wtc4, which exposed bed rock for the first time in 50000 years, as well as a scientific paper, and the fact the original wtc4 was not built in the "bath tub" and your response was, to quote: "mmm hmm." I'm nt getting the sense that you are all too flexible with your delusions, know what I mean?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
16.5 said:
Tracy, I posted video of the excavations below wtc4, which exposed bed rock for the first time in 50000 years, as well as a scientific paper, and the fact the original wtc4 was not built in the "bath tub" and your response was, to quote: "mmm hmm." I'm nt getting the sense that you are all too flexible with your delusions, know what I mean?
Click to expand...

I accept your critique and agree with part of it. I'm not flexible when it comes to science. Not flexible at all.
 
WTC Dust said:
I accept your critique and agree with part of it. I'm not flexible when it comes to science. Not flexible at all.
Click to expand...

So when real scientists do science and people here show you the science, you are not flexible about it?

Tracy, we already knew that! I mean claiming that solid bed rock was "dust" despite being shown it was not? That takes some inflexibility sport.

I'm proud of you! Recognizing you have a problem is part of the cure!
 
WTC Dust said:
I accept your critique and agree with part of it. I'm not flexible when it comes to science. Not flexible at all.
Click to expand...

Translation.. You're right, however I will still bring up the same "evidence" next week as if nothing had happened.
 
qm.gif
qm.gif
qm.gif
3u8oy8.jpg
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
I accept your critique and agree with part of it. I'm not flexible when it comes to science. Not flexible at all.
Click to expand...

Why do you continue to lie Tracy?
You claim to be a scientist, but rarely apply scientific procedure or even basic knowledge.
 
Skibum said:
Translation.. You're right, however I will still bring up the same "evidence" next week as if nothing had happened.
Click to expand...

Dark and light dust somehow made it into a nook in my apartment building. There was a bit of luck to that, but not really.

I had been looking for WTC dust since the first few days after the attacks. I insisted on living near Ground Zero so that I could continue my studies. I wondered when I moved into my apartment on 75 West Street whether or not I'd eventually find some dust there, and eventually I did.

I went into the nook because I was shellacking a sign, and I didn't want to smell up the corridor. I noticed the dust because I noticed the cigarette butts. There had been signs in the elevator lobby that week stating that the people who were throwing their cigarette butts off the roof should stop doing so, and the moment after I saw the cigarette butts, I noticed the material that the cigarette butts had landed on!

It was a moment I'm likely never to forget. After years of searching, I finally had found the dust. I did not know at the time that I would discover so many different things about the dust, but even finding it at all was a huge success! I've never looked for something for 8 years and then found it.
 

Attachments

  • shaft upwards.jpg
    shaft upwards.jpg
    58.4 KB · Views: 4
  • WTC dust in situ.jpg
    WTC dust in situ.jpg
    12.1 KB · Views: 4
  • shaft downwards.jpg
    shaft downwards.jpg
    66 KB · Views: 5
If the dark stuff was dust, where was the smoke from the acres of fire?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom