• 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

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.

You are starting from the assumption that what you recovered came from the smoke-like substances and trying to figure out how that happened.

But we see that the smoke like substance rose in the air for miles. Like smoke, even. We don't see any evidence that the stuff that looked like smoke fell 200 feet away. So, you have no reason to believe you gathered particles from the dark cloud at all, and your explanation is superfluous.

Thus, your argument is circular.
 
You know that feeling you get when you meet someone that likes to eat cat hair?


I feel like that when I read this thread.

Maybe if more people here posted more evidence, logic, engineering, videos, photographs, more math, physics and chemistry, we could convince her that she is wrong.
 
You know that feeling you get when you meet someone that likes to eat cat hair?


I feel like that when I read this thread.

Maybe if more people here posted more evidence, logic, engineering, videos, photographs, more math, physics and chemistry, we could convince her that she is wrong.

Failing that, at least it would provide lots of attention.
 
I am on the edge of my seat waiting to see what blatantly, painfully obvious and mundane aspect of reality will be denied next.
 
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.

I know this is a minor point, but it's been driving me crazy ever since I saw the video demonstration: dust, by definition, does not come in "huge chunks." If it's dust, it's not in huge chunks; if it's in huge chunks, it's not dust. I have a Ph.D. in English; therefore, my opinion must be correct.
 
I know this is a minor point, but it's been driving me crazy ever since I saw the video demonstration: dust, by definition, does not come in "huge chunks." If it's dust, it's not in huge chunks; if it's in huge chunks, it's not dust. I have a Ph.D. in English; therefore, my opinion must be correct.

She's claiming that the smoke somehow congealed into a huge chunk.
 
The dust contained unburned paper, which indicates that the dust wasn't very hot.

At what point did the dust come into contact with the paper? The question has the answer....
 
Last edited:
Public Service Announcement:

Ignoring attention-seeking trolls is the better way to go. When ignored, they quickly grow bored and go away, moving on to other forums where they can troll more successfully, and they also fail in their attempts to bait others into breaching the M.A. here as they hoped.

tl; dr version:

Just say no.

/PSA
 
Public Service Announcement:

Ignoring attention-seeking trolls is the better way to go. When ignored, they quickly grow bored and go away, moving on to other forums where they can troll more successfully, and they also fail in their attempts to bait others into breaching the M.A. here as they hoped.

tl; dr version:

Just say no.

/PSA

Hear hear. Why are some members indulging this attention-seeking troll? It's not funny anymore.
 
I know this is a minor point, but it's been driving me crazy ever since I saw the video demonstration: dust, by definition, does not come in "huge chunks." If it's dust, it's not in huge chunks; if it's in huge chunks, it's not dust. I have a Ph.D. in English; therefore, my opinion must be correct.

This material is very, very dusty. It's basically not held together very tightly at all. A mere scratch with a fingernail is enough to dislodge it. When it plopped down, it compacted a bit into a form that can be picked up in solid chunks.

The picture on the left is one of the piles of dust as I found it on site at 75 West Street. The picture on the right is a picture of some dust deposits taken at Ground Zero.
 

Attachments

  • comparison of dust fall pattern.jpg
    comparison of dust fall pattern.jpg
    42.5 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
Hear hear. Why are some members indulging this attention-seeking troll? It's not funny anymore.
Indeed. I put the silly attention, er, seeker on ignore a long time ago when it became quite clear that she would never attempt to learn anything or to correct any of her numerous basic errors of fact.

The first and central premise, that the buildings in question where turned to "dust", is manifestly false. The vast majority of the structural steel was recovered in solid form. The troll refuses to address that fact, so anything proceeding from that is irrelevant and serves only to provide a few chuckles at her wide-ranging incompetence. But the laughs aren't worth giving her the attention craves.
 
Y

Not Tracy, obviously; she refuses to use any of her dust collection for experimentation.



Wrong. I'm just not allowing them to be used casually or by anyone who isn't qualified. So far, no one has stepped up to the plate and asked for it.
 

Back
Top Bottom