Merged The Origin of Two Different Colors of WTC Dust

[WTC Dust]

I had a deep affection for the WTC buildings. I liked them. I never, ever expected at age 17, when this picture was taken, that eventually I'd end up owning part of WTC 2.

 

[Skibum]

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.

How have you ruled out contamination from all that rusty rebar in the concrete shown in your photos?

ETA... seriously? you had to search for 8 years for something that blanketed the entire area?

 

[phunk]

Are you talking about a hydrocarbon fire, or some other material?

You really expect me to believe that you don't know what fire I'm talking about?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

No, not really. If your fantasy were true then there were tens of thousands of tons of dustified WTC debris blowing all over Manhattan. If it had some new and unique physical properites, it is extraordinarily strange that you alone managed to spot it. Don't you think so?

Somehow I seem to have missed where you explained how you came by your materials science expertise which allowed you to declare this particular material to be new and unique. Perhaps you could explain that bit for us, and expound on the properties which set it apart from every other material.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

That dark "smoke" is dark because it contains almost nothing but iron. That isn't smoke. Smoke is mostly carbon.

Then why does it behave like a cloud of smoke and not like a cloud of iron particles? Do you see it reacting to the earth's magnetic field? I don't.

Take your time. Google up some videos. Let us know when you find one that doesn't show the smoke behaving exactly like smoke.

While you're about it, please explain why a cloud of fine iron particles suspended in air would not explode when it was created in the same location as the vigorous fires in the buildings.

 

[beachnut]

Color is chemistry. I learned this in high school. That dark "smoke" is dark because it contains almost nothing but iron.

That isn't smoke. Smoke is mostly carbon.

False, the dark smoke is dark because it is from fires which make dark smoke, or the smoke is like a cloud, void of light, therefore dark. It is not due to iron.

Oops, mostly carbon? Smoke from the wooden desks burning is. By g per kg of wood burning...

carbon monoxide 80-370
methane 14-25
VOCs* (C2-C7) 7-27
aldehydes 0.6-5.4
substituted furans 0.15-1.7
benzene 0.6-4.0
alkyl benzenes 1-6
acetic acid 1.8-2.4
formic acid 0.06-0.08
nitrogen oxides 0.2-0.9
sulfur dioxide 0.16-0.24
methyl chloride 0.01-0.04
napthalene 0.24-1.6
substituted napthalenes 0.3-2.1
oxygenated monoaromatics 1-7
total particle mass 7-30
particulate organic carbon 2-20
oxygenated PAHs 0.15-1
Individual PAHs 10-5-10-2
chlorinated dioxins 1x10-5-4x10-5
normal alkanes (C24-C30) 1x10-3-6x10-3
sodium 3x10-3-2.8x10-2
magnesium 2x10-4-3x10-3
aluminum 1x10-4-2.4x10-2
silicon 3x10-4-3.1x10-2
sulfur 1x10-3-2.9x10-2
chlorine 7x10-4-2.1x10-2
potassium 3x10-3-8.6x10-2
calcium 9x10-4-1.8x10-2
titanium 4x10-5-3x10-3
vanadium 2x10-5-4x10-3
chromium 2x10-5-3x10-3
manganese 7x10-5-4x10-3
iron 3x10-4-5x10-3
nickel 1x10-6-1x10-3
copper 2x10-4-9x10-4
zinc 7x10-4-8x10-3
bromine 7x10-5-9x10-4
lead 1x10-4-3x10-3

Wrong again. Carbon monoxide is colorless - the biggest product in the smoke. Where did you "learn" chemistry? It appears you are making this up as you go, no real facts, just BS to form a big silly lie about 911.

The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.

A most silly lie based on BS.


The truth is the Vatican was behind the WTC collapse.

The black smoke is potassium perchlorate, anthracene and sulphur.
The white smoke is potassium chlorate, lactose, and pine resin (Greek pitch).
(you must of missed this day in high school chemistry, and more likely learned to master fantasy)

Looks like some did not learn "chemistry", and can't figure out what the dark smoke is - the fantasy claim is it is iron dust/smoke to go with your fantasy.


You say.

That dark "smoke" is dark because it contains almost nothing but iron

Survey of science says; carbon makes the sooting black smoke. oops - not sure what iron smoke looks like, but the WTC steel did not turn to dust or foam.

 

[Dash80]

So both towers were being constantly zapped with this weapon, producing dark dust?

How did the people coming down the stairwells survive if the cores were being reduced to dust the whole time?

 

[brazenlilraisin]

I never, ever expected at age 17, when this picture was taken, that eventually I'd end up owning part of WTC 2.

I know what you mean, Doc. When I was 17 I had a '74 Vega. Imagine my surprise when I found part of its engine block in my kitchen drawer

 

[WTC Dust]

How have you ruled out contamination from all that rusty rebar in the concrete shown in your photos?

ETA... seriously? you had to search for 8 years for something that blanketed the entire area?

#1 You couldn't get to much of the area, because they had it tightly cordoned off in the first few days.
#2 By day 3 post-attack, they had already cleaned the streets where they were allowing people to go.
#3 You could see it on the second story window ledges, which is why I recognized it when I saw it when I encountered it in the nook.

 

[WTC Dust]

No, not really. If your fantasy were true then there were tens of thousands of tons of dustified WTC debris blowing all over Manhattan. If it had some new and unique physical properites, it is extraordinarily strange that you alone managed to spot it. Don't you think so?

Somehow I seem to have missed where you explained how you came by your materials science expertise which allowed you to declare this particular material to be new and unique. Perhaps you could explain that bit for us, and expound on the properties which set it apart from every other material.

Metallic foam is quite strange. Metallic foam with DNA and unburned paper mixed in it is even stranger, because it indicates that the foam was produced at low temperature.

There's nothing like this in the textbooks. Metallic foams, yes, exist, but the ones that people know about are produced in specific industrial processes, not in the open air at ambient temperatures.

 

[Skibum]

#1 You couldn't get to much of the area, because they had it tightly cordoned off in the first few days.
#2 By day 3 post-attack, they had already cleaned the streets where they were allowing people to go.
#3 You could see it on the second story window ledges, which is why I recognized it when I saw it when I encountered it in the nook.

That's nice. I noticed in your pics you posted the other day that all of the concrete ledges show evidence of significant rebar spalling. All of your samples have been contaminated by all the crap that dropped into the dust from this. How have you determined that the iron in your samples is not from this and positively from the wtc.

Also have you compared your samples to known samples of wtc dust? If yours is different, the only logical explanation is yours is either not wtc dust or yours has been contaminated, making it unsuitable as any type of evidence.

 

[Skibum]

Contamination cannot account for the two colors. Microscopically, the two types of dust are different.

Yes it can. The MOST obvious explanation that you are purposely overlooking is that one of the layers is pure contamination. You have done no comparative study between your samples and known samples. Do you really believe that your sample sat there for 8 years without any contamination? If you do you are even more delusional than I first thought.

 

[WTC Dust]

Yes it can. The MOST obvious explanation that you are purposely overlooking is that one of the layers is pure contamination. You have done no comparative study between your samples and known samples. Do you really believe that your sample sat there for 8 years without any contamination? If you do you are even more delusional than I first thought.

Then you don't need to worry, because I have considered contamination at great length.

 

[Skibum]

Then you don't need to worry, because I have considered contamination at great length.

And yet your dust is significantly different from known samples. How is this possible. The concrete ledges you collected your dust from have been shedding concrete, iron oxide and iron for years, how has this not been falling onto your piles? Does your dust repel contaminate somehow?

 

[WTC Dust]

And yet your dust is significantly different from known samples. How is this possible. The concrete ledges you collected your dust from have been shedding concrete, iron oxide and iron for years, how has this not been falling onto your piles? Does your dust repel contaminate somehow?

Among other things, the dust is still intact in huge chunks. If contamination took place to a significant degree, the inner part would still be relatively free of contamination. Most of the dust I collected is untouched, safely stored.

 

[Skibum]

Among other things, the dust is still intact in huge chunks. If contamination took place to a significant degree, the inner part would still be relatively free of contamination. Most of the dust I collected is untouched, safely stored.

How exactly does this eliminate at least one layer from being totally contaminate? You only assume it is wtc dust.

 

[WTC Dust]

How exactly does this eliminate at least one layer from being totally contaminate? You only assume it is wtc dust.

Now you're switching topics. "Is the WTC dust contaminated with anything that isn't WTC dust?" is one question. "Is it WTC dust?" is a different question.

 

[Skibum]

Now you're switching topics. "Is the WTC dust contaminated with anything that isn't WTC dust?" is one question. "Is it WTC dust?" is a different question.

No. Its the same question. I agree that given the proximity to the collapses that there is a layer of wtc dust. I'm saying that what is on top of that is all something else.

 

[phiwum]

You are the one suggesting acres of fire. I'm asking you the question, "What was the fuel for this fire?" If you answer includes anything but hydrocarbon, I'm somewhat interested. If it includes nothing but hydrocarbon, I'm not, because hydrocarbons don't burn hot enough to significantly weaken steel (at atmospheric pressure).

Sorry, but you're changing the subject.

Here was the issue. You claim that all the dark particles in your photo were due to the core of WTC being foamified. Others claim that it is smoke from the fires which are clearly visible in the WTC.

Let's stick to this: why couldn't all those particles -- which certainly look and behave like smoke -- be, you know, smoke? Isn't that the rather more obvious interpretation of that big plume of stuff that looks rather a lot like smoke and is in the vicinity of fires?

 

[phunk]

I like how she says we're "suggesting" that there was fire, as if it's not an established fact.

What's this?