• 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.

WTC dust

Status
Not open for further replies.
WTC Dust said:
I really don't know. All I can say is that some beams appeared to have rather clean looking cuts on them in some of the pictures, which I consider to be inconsistent with an airplane crash conspiracy.

The steel samples they did recover from Ground Zero were anomalously damaged in many cases, as was The Sphere.
Click to expand...

I've never seen a picture of a cut piece of steel from the WTC, other than the ones cut in the clean up. Do you have any?

What was anomalous about 'The Sphere'? I'm looking at a picture of it that I took a couple months ago, don't see anything other than damage from debris falling on it.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Fine, so you're incompetent and evasive. What did you think the term "molecule of iron" referred to when you used it?

Dave
Click to expand...

Have you noticed that 'her' terminology changes as new terms are used in this thread?
 
WTC Dust said:
The heterogenous aspect of the dust resolves the discrepancy in the peer reviewed literature on the dust and explains the highly variable results with the mass composition analyses.

The metallic dust disproves a plane crash, because nothing about a plane crash can result in this type of dust. The macroscopic structure of the dust is at least as important as the elemental composition of the dust. I'm calling it a "foam". The carbon? Eh? Since it's about 1% of steel and since it is an extremely abundant material, I'm going to have to put pretty large error bars and warning flags about any sort of analysis of the carbon.
Click to expand...

I see we've entered the bafflegab phase.
 
WTC Dust said:
Probably not in the little nook where the dust was found, no. There was a few cigarette butts lying around, but I didn't mistake the dust for tobacco ash, either.
Click to expand...

Thanks for trying to answer, I guess.
Why does your answer seem like a dodge?
I'll try again, maybe something shiny distracted you, from being clear.

Out side of "the little nook", but inside same dwelling, did an artist of metal reside ( meaning: some one who works with metal!)? The cigarette butts comment was interesting, however.:rolleyes:
 
WTC Dust said:
The metallic dust disproves a plane crash, because nothing about a plane crash can result in this type of dust. The macroscopic structure of the dust is at least as important as the elemental composition of the dust. I'm calling it a "foam". The carbon? Eh? Since it's about 1% of steel and since it is an extremely abundant material, I'm going to have to put pretty large error bars and warning flags about any sort of analysis of the carbon.
Click to expand...

Unevaluated inequality fallacy. You haven't shown what level of metals are in the dust, much less compared it to the dust created from other plane crashes of similar velocities.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Unevaluated inequality fallacy. You haven't shown what level of metals are in the dust, much less compared it to the dust created from other plane crashes of similar velocities.
Click to expand...

Or ruled out the possibility that it was created by the collapse, not the plane crash.
 
WTC Dust said:
I really don't know. All I can say is that some beams appeared to have rather clean looking cuts on them in some of the pictures, which I consider to be inconsistent with an airplane crash conspiracy.

The steel samples they did recover from Ground Zero were anomalously damaged in many cases, as was The Sphere.
Click to expand...
What, like these:

anglecut2.jpg


But then you do get those when you cut through beams as part of the clean-up effort:

cut.jpg


http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
 
Mikemcc said:
What, like these:

[qimg]http://www.debunking911.com/anglecut2.jpg[/qimg]

But then you do get those when you cut through beams as part of the clean-up effort:

[qimg]http://www.debunking911.com/cut.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
Click to expand...
Notice the guy in the last picture is holding a DEW!!!!!!! And it's "fuming"!!!!


:eek:






:boxedin:
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
The metallic dust disproves a plane crash, because nothing about a plane crash can result in this type of dust.
Click to expand...

Goodbye critical thinking, hello circular logic.:rolleyes:

The RJ Lee study classified over 400,000 particles using SEM techniques and produced 80,000 images.
Protocols for collection were followed for 130 Liberty. (see 1.3 Testing Protocols, p. 03)
Sample analysis took place under a number of accepted protocols using SEM, EDS, XRD, GC/MS.

That was a proper, well documented and professional scientific approach.

Dr Blevins would elevate her 'forensic' investigation to this level without having demonstrated even a single instance of such competency. To call Dr Blevin's activities 'scientific research' is to denigrate those terms.
 
From the RJ Lee study 'The collapse of a major building can produce significant quantities of dust and debris comprised of the construction materials and the contents of the building. Fires in commercial office buildings can produce combustion
products including soot, partially combusted aerosolized particles and
organic vapors.'

Dr Blevins denies this, of course, pretending that the collapses wouldn't have produced the amount of dust they did.

This is a bare assertion, naturally. Dr Blevins will be unable to refer to any major building demolition that didn't produce a significant amount of dust. She will also be unable to reference a building which collapsed due to fires that didn't leave a large amount of debris as described by the RJ Lee study.

She will avoid all such attempts at quantifying the expected results of a gravitational collapse, and move on to the wild and undocumented speculation which truthers are so fond of.

Back to the RJ Lee report, regarding 130 Liberty; 'approximately 1,500 windows were
broken; and the Building was exposed to the elements as well as being filled
with a combination of soot, dust, dirt, debris, and contaminants.'
'In April of 2002, RJ Lee Group was retained by the law firm of Pitney Hardin
Kipp & Szuch LLP, on behalf of the Bank, to oversee and investigate the
presence, type, amount, and extent of environmental contaminants in the
Building and to recommend remediation strategies. The findings set forth in
this report are based upon RJ Lee Group’s review of the results of its own
extensive set of analyses, its background, experience, and education in this
area, as well as its study of recognized scientific literature.'

p. 01

Notice the relevant qualifications of the company doing the study? Notice the timing of the study, not long after 9/11.

Notice the audacity of truther claims (such as those of Dr's Wood and Blevins) are inversely proportional to the claimants' expertise in the relevant areas? That's the strongest pattern which emerges, along with the obvious craving for attention exhibited by said truthers.
 
'For nearly 30 years, RJ Lee Group, Inc. (RJLG) has excelled at providing analytical services, technical consulting, information management, and expert testimony in materials characterization and forensic engineering. Our services are sought by leading organizations in academia, industry, and government.'

Tracy Blevin's relevant expertise and experience in these areas? None that we can determine.

Here's one of the most relevant specific areas in which Dr Blevins is missing the mark completely: Chain of Custody


'The chain of custody procedure starts with sample collection and follows through to the destruction of the sample. The purpose of the procedure is to ensure that the sample has been in possession of, or secured by, a responsible person at all times. It should remove any doubt about sample identification or that the sample has been tampered with. '

Here's the RJ Lee chain of custody form (xl). Note how Dr Blevins is unable or unwilling to provide a single example of this kind of professional due diligence. I submit that she is both unaware of such necessities and doesn't care about them.
 
Sabrina said:
I'm honestly amazed that no one so far has pointed out the fallacy that the "dust" has yet to be proven to be from the WTC. And by that, I mean that Dusty here has stated unequivocally that the dust was purported to be found in a DWELLING; not outside of it, mind you, IN it, which completely destroys the possibility of the "dust" being an uncontaminated sample FROM the WTC site. The mere possibility that the "dust" was contaminated by whatever building materials were within said dwelling completely negates any findings whatsoever.

I'm also reminded of reading about a woman who, upon returning to her apartment near the Ground Zero site, claimed she had found copious quantities of some sort of dust-like material in her apartment that she believed had come from Ground Zero. The reason I bring this up is that, IIRC, that woman was an artist who worked with welding equipment and sculpted metal, so the likelihood that the dust was contaminated with metal filings was extremely high in her case. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that Dusty got her sample from this woman, which would put the final nail in the coffin of her delusional rantings.
Click to expand...


Don't worry, Sabrina. I've got good reasons for thinking it's WTC dust.
 
WTC Dust said:
Look at the picture. Those men are not in formation. I don't need somebody to say words when I have a picture. Words are less reliable than documents. Documents are less reliable than physical evidence.
Click to expand...

And my experience of being there first hand, tells me differently.

Care to cite your source that it was interrupted?
 
Sabrina said:
Ah, so we're making progress! You admit that it may in fact be dust that is causing discomfort rather than some unknown, unverified "fumes" that you don't have a shred of evidence for other than your personal incredulity.

Now, as DGM said, you have offered no information as to the context of the picture. You don't appear to even know who took it (or at least you have not indicated so in this thread). How, may I ask, do you draw the conclusion that they are reacting to "fumes" rather than dust swirls from a gust of wind blowing across what was at the time a very dirty, very dusty site? Occam's Razor would seem to lean toward the more mundane explanation of dust blown around by the wind, yet you go for the one that is quite literally impossible to verify, since none of us were there and it would be difficult if not impossible to contact the people in that picture, since there are few distinguishing characteristics visible in the photo.

If you do possess information on who took the picture in question, please provide it and/or contact the individual and ask them what the context was of the photo. What were the firefighters doing at the time of the photo being taken? Were they in some kind of formation that was disrupted by the dust swirls? Or was the photo taken much later after the ceremony was complete and that is why they were in what is colloquially known as a "gaggle"? Was the ceremony in any way disrupted by the dust swirls? Either provide this information, or admit that you don't know enough about the context of the photo to claim it is proof of ANYTHING, much less your putative "fumes".
Click to expand...


Sabrina,

I really don't know why you are arguing this point.
 
phunk said:
I've never seen a picture of a cut piece of steel from the WTC, other than the ones cut in the clean up. Do you have any?

What was anomalous about 'The Sphere'? I'm looking at a picture of it that I took a couple months ago, don't see anything other than damage from debris falling on it.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of damage to The Sphere that is inconsistent with anything falling on it.

Curled up edges. Blown out parts. Thinned bronze plates. Punch out holes. Doesn't look one bit like damage from falling objects to me. Wanna meet in Battery Park to take a look at it? It's still right there, for everyone to view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom