• 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

Skibum said:
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?
Click to expand...
As well as bird crap, feathers, anything thrown out the windows, cigarette ash, cigarettes, water run off containing just about anything, moss, you name it. The whole idea that this is WTC dust is complete nonsense as are the rest of Tracey's ideas.

She believes no planes crashed yet calls other people dunderheads. You can't argue with someone so far removed from reality.
 
Skibum said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't take "what was on top of the dust". I took the dust itself.
 
phunk said:
I like how she says we're "suggesting" that there was fire, as if it's not an established fact.

What's this?

[qimg]http://www.debunking911.com/WTC_on_fire9.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I don't know what that is. It is orange-red in color, at least in this pic. You're saying that was "fire", am I right?
 
WTC Dust said:
I didn't take "what was on top of the dust". I took the dust itself.
Click to expand...

And I'm suggesting, actually I'm pretty sure, you didn't go deep enough. I recall you picking out cigarette butts. You didn't exclude 8 years worth of pollen, regular city dust, crap that fell into it from the surrounding concrete....etc. you have no clue what you are really looking at because you have not done any meaningful analysis of it. You are simply assuming it is what you think/ are desperately hoping you proclaim it is.
 
Skibum said:
And I'm suggesting, actually I'm pretty sure, you didn't go deep enough. I recall you picking out cigarette butts. You didn't exclude 8 years worth of pollen, regular city dust, crap that fell into it from the surrounding concrete....etc. you have no clue what you are really looking at because you have not done any meaningful analysis of it. You are simply assuming it is what you think/ are desperately hoping you proclaim it is.
Click to expand...

Time will tell.
 
phiwum said:
This presumes that the stuff everyone else is calling "smoke" -- you know, the stuff that is going up in every image, and not coming back down -- is the source of some of the dust you found.
Click to expand...

I recall she's previously posted a satellite picture of the smoke cloud leaving Manhattan and travelling for many miles.

Odd that the dense "foam" she found should behave exactly like smoke.

Say, WTC Dust, have you experimentally thrown any of your samples in the air, to see if they can fly?
 
WTC Dust said:
The dust contained unburned paper, which indicates that the dust wasn't very hot.
Click to expand...

Very good! You have given evidence that all of those theories which postulate that the dust resulting from the collapse of the WTC was uniformly hot enough to burn paper are wrong.

Well, that's bound to shake up some people!
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I recall she's previously posted a satellite picture of the smoke cloud leaving Manhattan and travelling for many miles.

Odd that the dense "foam" she found should behave exactly like smoke.

Say, WTC Dust, have you experimentally thrown any of your samples in the air, to see if they can fly?
Click to expand...

Yes, how does a cool, slow explosion cause dust to fly for miles (while still large quantities come down nearby, where WTC Dust collected it)?
 
WTC Dust said:
The dust contained unburned paper, which indicates that the dust wasn't very hot.
Click to expand...

Yes. The dust was principally smashed drywall and concrete dust and most of it was never hot since only some floors of the buildings burned.

For every floor of the building that was on fire there were many more which were not.

You appear to be arguing against a claim that nobody has made - that the dust was created directly by fire. Nobody said that. Nobody thinks that.


So with that to one side, regarding the example I gave you of a "hydrocarbon fire" which significantly weakened the structural steelwork of a building, do you have any thoughts about whether the same could have happened to the WTC?
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
Very good questions. I don't have the answers.
Click to expand...
If you think you have dust with DNA, you are breaking the law, holding evidence of 911. Have you contacted the FBI, or are you doing illegal activity so you can't contact the police, FBI, etc.

Why are you holding evidence from the FBI on 911? You have evidence of a conspiracy too, the foam steel, the inside job. You are withholding evidence from the FBI, Why? Wait, your claims are all BS, and fantasy, so you can't do anything.

What will it be? Fantasy, or contact the FBI with your evidence, your piece of WTC 2 and DNA dust?
 
WTC Dust said:
I didn't take "what was on top of the dust". I took the dust itself.
Click to expand...

WTC Dust said:
Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Time will not tell. Only testing will, testing that you will never do. Yet you will still be here proclaiming to have irrefutable proof that you are correct. Until your testing is concluded any further speculation into your theory is worthless and unsubstantiated and belongs in the garbage.
 
WTC Dust said:
Very good questions. I don't have the answers.
Click to expand...

Nor do you have any reason to believe that the stuff that looked like smoke, acted like smoke and was produced in the immediate vicinity of some stuff that seemed an awful lot like fire was really iron-laden foamy dust created by a secret weapon.

There is no obvious connection between the smoke-like substance and the dust you collected eight years later. There's no reason in the world to think that the cloud of smoke, sorry, smoke-like substance, which clearly ascended for miles, dumped any noticeable amount of dust in that airwell.

No reason aside from shame at looking foolish.
 
phiwum said:
Nor do you have any reason to believe that the stuff that looked like smoke, acted like smoke and was produced in the immediate vicinity of some stuff that seemed an awful lot like fire was really iron-laden foamy dust created by a secret weapon.

There is no obvious connection between the smoke-like substance and the dust you collected eight years later. There's no reason in the world to think that the cloud of smoke, sorry, smoke-like substance, which clearly ascended for miles, dumped any noticeable amount of dust in that airwell.

No reason aside from shame at looking foolish.
Click to expand...

I'm not thinking this happened. My building was located 200 feet from Ground Zero. WTC 2 (the closest of the twin towers) was 1300+ feet tall. The stuff just plopped down. It only had to travel about 15% horizontally compared to its height.

I don't know for a fact that the WTC dust came pretty much straight down into the nook, and I haven't ever found videos focused on that specific area. But 200 feet isn't much compared to a tall building like that. I don't think the black stuff went up into the sky and then fell down into my apartment building.

I think the larger particles (the ones that fell) came down that cranny. The smaller particles (the ones that rose) went up into the atmosphere and eventually came down who knows if or where.
 
Skibum said:
Wrong. Until you have finished your testing you are by definition..a conspiracy theorist...or the worst scientist in the world. Though to be fair, you could still be both in the long run.
Click to expand...

No. Conspiracy theorists concern themselves with the illegal actions of a group of people who attempt to keep the secret. I don't do that, except for the one statement that the cover story was provided by the perpetrators. But that is a conjecture based on forensic science, not a story about individuals.

If a cover story gets provided, but later on something else is found out to be the real story, whoever provided the cover story is almost assuredly in cahoots with the perpetrators of the real act. This applies to all crimes, not just 9/11.
 
WTC Dust said:
For one thing, look at my avatar. Do you see the dark and the light dust, what I'm calling "fumes" in the picture (because they are moving upwards).
Click to expand...

*Looks at avatar*

I see lots of bright colors. No fumes/dust though...

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom