WTC dust

[WTC Dust]

How do you know it's metallic if you don't know the mass composition of your dust?

First of all, I do know the approximate mass composition of my dust. Second to that, the "approximate" nature of my knowledge is actually exciting and a subject of debate between me and the one scientist I've managed to interest in this project.

Here's the issue: heterogeneity.

What my potential colleague on this project is saying is that I should be happy with the results that come from "the average" mass composition of the dust.

What I say is "No, way." To take an average and accept that as the value is to eradicate my original contribution to the field. Have you seen the papers on the dust that are already out there? Everyone else assumes a monotypical dust (despite their data that often indicates otherwise).

Most of them halfway mention the heterogeneity, but gloss it over. Their results are (in my opinion) all over the map. And most of the studies found the majority dust, the stuff that isn't especially metallic. The lighter gray dust. Data slide number two shows the lighter dust and the metallic dust.

Steven Jones, as much I think of him as a bad theoretician, has presented data on the same type of metallic dust that I've found, and I find no particular reason to distrust the actual data that he presents on the dust. His conclusions are terrible, mean spirited, and anti-American and do not flow from the data. But he did study the metallic dust.

I think my research:
1. reconciles the discrepancies in the literature regarding the content of the dust

and

2. proves that airplane crashes were not responsible for the destruction of the WTC.

To just take a mass composition of the "dust" when there is actually more than one type of dust is to ignore my basic and almost irrefutable finding: heterogenous dust.

You might somehow find a flaw in my reasoning regarding the metallic nature of the dust, but good god. The dust is obviously multitypical.

 

[WTC Dust]

Well for starters, maybe you have not obtained the right publish the photos from the photographer. Most of what is published here is public domain - things released by government agencies etc. But your stock seems to be exclusive and private, so we might find you in violation of Rule 4 of your Membership Agreement.

As a research scientist, you are also certainly aware of the high importance placed upon the chain of custody of your pieces of evidence. Are you not?

The person who took the pictures of the dust is a colleague of mine. I'll credit him. He said I could use the pictures. I really don't want to violate the rules of JREF, so can you tell me how this might be a violation? I'll take the pic down if that's the case.

 

[WTC Dust]

You had a theory that the destruction of the WTC was not a picture perfect event and that when the remaining core columns or 'spires' were noticed the perps just pointed their device or whatever it was at the spires and gave them another dose to knock them down.

But the dust does not appear to go 'poof' at all in my opinion.There seems to be no energetic reaction. So do you think the Casimir effect was in operation in the attached video as we see the spires dustifying ? If not do you have a theory to cover what we are seeing ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI&NR=1

I can see how a plan to destroy such a huge set of buildings might have some imperfect implementation.

Related to the not much poofing of the spire, I already told you the horizontal veloctity of the dust cloud was less than forty feet per second, which is not much poofing power. The spire appears to become dust on video. If the Casimir effect is what destroyed the WTC, then I'd say that is what destroyed the spire.

 

[WTC Dust]

Fe is all over the earth; you have nothing to do with the WTC collapse, you have delusions. You can't specify the energy required to dustify steel, you failed.

How are you doing today?

 

[WTC Dust]

No, umpteen thousand steel components failed during the collapse. Sheared beams, rivets, etc, the idea that there wouldn't be iron dust would be ludicrous.

Now please give us an idea of how far out of the norm your sample is, or are you purely here on a fishing expedition hoping that we will feed your delusions?

Due to the issues of heterogeneity that I mentioned earlier, I do not have exact figures yet. What I'm provisionally working with is 4/5ths iron, 80%.

 

[Mikemcc]

First of all, I do know the approximate mass composition of my dust. Second to that, the "approximate" nature of my knowledge is actually exciting and a subject of debate between me and the one scientist I've managed to interest in this project.

Here's the issue: heterogeneity.

What my potential colleague on this project is saying is that I should be happy with the results that come from "the average" mass composition of the dust.

What I say is "No, way." To take an average and accept that as the value is to eradicate my original contribution to the field. Have you seen the papers on the dust that are already out there? Everyone else assumes a monotypical dust (despite their data that often indicates otherwise).

Most of them halfway mention the heterogeneity, but gloss it over. Their results are (in my opinion) all over the map. And most of the studies found the majority dust, the stuff that isn't especially metallic. The lighter gray dust. Data slide number two shows the lighter dust and the metallic dust.

Steven Jones, as much I think of him as a bad theoretician, has presented data on the same type of metallic dust that I've found, and I find no particular reason to distrust the actual data that he presents on the dust. His conclusions are terrible, mean spirited, and anti-American and do not flow from the data. But he did study the metallic dust.

I think my research:
1. reconciles the discrepancies in the literature regarding the content of the dust

and

2. proves that airplane crashes were not responsible for the destruction of the WTC.

To just take a mass composition of the "dust" when there is actually more than one type of dust is to ignore my basic and almost irrefutable finding: heterogenous dust.

You might somehow find a flaw in my reasoning regarding the metallic nature of the dust, but good god. The dust is obviously multitypical.

You are seriously saying that you can discount aircraft impact based on a mineral study of the impact?

Aicraft mass 100 to 300t (top of my head without looking up the specific types). Buiding mass more than 500000t. So from a sample of dust, with no chain-of-custody, and undisclosed origin can beat a 1000-to-1 mass ratio on any known test and beatthe signal-to-noise ratio associated with that test. You're delusional.

There's no test in existance that can profile a sample and say that something is missing when the signal is 1000 times less than the background. The noise would totally obscure any discrepancy!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Fe is all over the earth; you have nothing to do with the WTC collapse, you have delusions. You can't specify the energy required to dustify steel, you failed.

More particularly, she hasn't specified the energy required to:

... increase the radiant energy or alter the magnetic field such that the Casimir effect is repulsive...

Nor explained what radiant energy needs to be increased or in what way a magnetic field needs to be altered to cause bulk steel to fling itself apart.

Nor accounted for why, among the many, many generations of scientists, engineers and amateur experimenters who have investigated the interaction of iron with all kinds of magnetic fields, spontaneous dustification of iron has never been observed.

 

[Mikemcc]

Due to the issues of heterogeneity that I mentioned earlier, I do not have exact figures yet. What I'm provisionally working with is 4/5ths iron, 80%.

That's iron fillings not dust.

You found some kids magnet experiment kit, not a representative sample of dust from the collapse!

 

[bill smith]

I can see how a plan to destroy such a huge set of buildings might have some imperfect implementation.

Related to the not much poofing of the spire, I already told you the horizontal veloctity of the dust cloud was less than forty feet per second, which is not much poofing power. The spire appears to become dust on video. If the Casimir effect is what destroyed the WTC, then I'd say that is what destroyed the spire.

I think that at 40 feet a second we would see some dissociation of the molecules as they repelled each other. As it is the dust appears to be inert.

If you are right then the Casimir effect is barely discernable to the naked eye.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If you are right then the Casimir effect is barely discernable to the naked eye.

If she's right, then varying a magnetic field in some unspecified way can cause bulk iron to spontaneously dissociate at an atomic level. Not really iron dust so much as iron vapour.

With so much of the world's electrical machinery and electronic equipment relying on varying magnetic fields in iron parts, it must be worth considering that unexplained spontaneous evaporation of transformer cores is not a recognised phenomenon.

 

[WTC Dust]

You are seriously saying that you can discount aircraft impact based on a mineral study of the impact?

Aicraft mass 100 to 300t (top of my head without looking up the specific types). Buiding mass more than 500000t. So from a sample of dust, with no chain-of-custody, and undisclosed origin can beat a 1000-to-1 mass ratio on any known test and beatthe signal-to-noise ratio associated with that test. You're delusional.

There's no test in existance that can profile a sample and say that something is missing when the signal is 1000 times less than the background. The noise would totally obscure any discrepancy!

I did not understand this response.

 

[WTC Dust]

More particularly, she hasn't specified the energy required to:


Nor explained what radiant energy needs to be increased or in what way a magnetic field needs to be altered to cause bulk steel to fling itself apart.

Nor accounted for why, among the many, many generations of scientists, engineers and amateur experimenters who have investigated the interaction of iron with all kinds of magnetic fields, spontaneous dustification of iron has never been observed.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say spontaneous. It would be anything but spontaneous. I'd call it "purposeful". Dr. Mel Winfield has claimed to have patented a portable device that can do exactly this. Ask him questions about it. He lives in Ontario, Canada.

ETA: I shouldn't have said "patented" because I'm not sure he got a patent. I meant to say that Mel Winfield claims to have INVENTED a device that can do this.

 

[WTC Dust]

That's iron fillings not dust.

You found some kids magnet experiment kit, not a representative sample of dust from the collapse!

Maybe you are right. Maybe it is iron filings. I don't know how they'd get there, but ok.

I used two different types of magnets. I used density matched control samples. I don't know why you are giving me a hassle about this.

If my samples can make magnets dance, they are magnetic. Please give me at least that much.

 

[excaza]

First of all, I do know the approximate mass composition of my dust. Second to that, the "approximate" nature of my knowledge is actually exciting and a subject of debate between me and the one scientist I've managed to interest in this project.

Here's the issue: heterogeneity.

You keep saying this like it means something. It doesn't. What is the mass composition of your dust? It doesn't matter if it's made up of 85483765324 different materials. What are the materials, and what are the specific concentrations of each material?

Everyone else assumes a monotypical dust (despite their data that often indicates otherwise).

No, they don't. They give the specific composition of the dust.

You might somehow find a flaw in my reasoning regarding the metallic nature of the dust, but good god. The dust is obviously multitypical.

No ****, sherlock. What is the mass composition of your dust?

 

[WTC Dust]

If she's right, then varying a magnetic field in some unspecified way can cause bulk iron to spontaneously dissociate at an atomic level. Not really iron dust so much as iron vapour.

With so much of the world's electrical machinery and electronic equipment relying on varying magnetic fields in iron parts, it must be worth considering that unexplained spontaneous evaporation of transformer cores is not a recognised phenomenon.

Those things aren't built to the proper scale. Casimir effects are noticeable at the micrometer level, and not much beyond that.

Piezoelectric devices must account for the Casimir effect, you betcha.

 

[excaza]

If my samples can make magnets dance, they are magnetic. Please give me at least that much.

So you found some iron at a site where two skyscrapers collapsed. Yippee-skippy, I'll go call the Nobel Foundation.

 

[alienentity]

Why is what I say important to you? According to you, I'm a lone nut liar fake scientist who doesn't live in NYC and who doesn't have metallic dust. Right? That type of person will naturally fall to the wayside.

What happens if I don't step back?

I never said you don't live in NYC. But the other part is accurate.

What happens if you don't step back from your bare assertions? You'll waste more of your life's energy pursuing a phantom, and you'll degrade your scientific reputation.
There are other real hazards to you as well, including the state of your mental health.

 

[WTC Dust]

You keep saying this like it means something. It doesn't. What is the mass composition of your dust? It doesn't matter if it's made up of 85483765324 different materials. What are the materials, and what are the specific concentrations of each material?


No, they don't. They give the specific composition of the dust.


No ****, sherlock. What is the mass composition of your dust?

Exaca, You're missing my point. If the dust is different types, I would need more than a simple mass composition.

I could try and select equal amounts of the different types of dust and grind them up for the experiment, but why should I do that?

No single value for "mass composition" would be an adequate description of the contents of the dust. The heterogeneity I speak about is replete within the peer reviewed literature on the dust. Those people just aren't talking about it in the right way.

 

[Mikemcc]

I did not understand this response.

You said:

2. proves that airplane crashes were not responsible for the destruction of the WTC

This is clearly rubbish, your sample couldn't possibly show the absence of plane debris. 1). Most of the most massive components (under-carriage, engines, etc) exited the towers and fell into the surrounding neighbourhood. 2.) the mass of the remaining debris was so small in comparison to the rest of the structure that it's potential absence is undetecable.

 

[excaza]

Exaca, You're missing my point. If the dust is different types, I would need more than a simple mass composition.

No, you don't. You need to take enough readings to be statistically certain that you have accounted for all the materials in your sample. It's really not as mystical and difficult as you're making it out to be.

I could try and select equal amounts of the different types of dust and grind them up for the experiment, but why should I do that?

Because that's how sane people do the analysis.

No single value for "mass composition" would be an adequate description of the contents of the dust.

Yes, it would, that's the whole point.

The heterogeneity I speak about is

Irrelevant

Those people just aren't talking about it in the right way.

Yes, they are. You're not. You're purposely obfuscating.