• 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:
Since the dust was in most cases, scooped up from the ground, how was it not contaminated? The dust I collected never touched the ground!
Click to expand...

Because it can account for the stuff that is in there. You cannot account for the 9 years that it sat in an uncontrolled area.

Why do you not understand something as simple as "care, custody, and control?"
 
triforcharity said:
Because it can account for the stuff that is in there. You cannot account for the 9 years that it sat in an uncontrolled area.

Why do you not understand something as simple as "care, custody, and control?"
Click to expand...

Contamination is a real thing. It's not imaginary. It can be characterized.
 
WTC Dust said:
If you say that NOTHING was surprising to the fire fighters, then why did they all proceed up the stairwells into the buildings? Why do you have fire fighters acting all gobsmacked on the Naudet videos?

The fire fighters were surprised by what went down. Many of them paid with their lives. Do you really think the fire commander would send his troops upstairs expecting the buildings would go away like that? That is a stretch. I think of fire fighters as good people, not deliberate murderers.
Click to expand...

You're taking my post out of context. I was referrring specifically to the smells and fires that occured after the collapse.

The rest of your post is just ****.
 
triforcharity said:
Really? Show me the exact contamination from day 1 to when you retrieved it.

I'll wait.
Click to expand...

If you suggest that contamination occurred, you should be able to back up your claims. I told you about the cigarette butts nearby. They weren't actually touching my samples, but they were nearby. Other than that...don't know what would have contaminated my samples.

They were subjected to changing temperatures and humidity, but never to direct precipitation.
 
WTC Dust said:
Contamination is a real thing. It's not imaginary. It can be characterized.
Click to expand...

So, WTC Dust, I'm very confused in reading all of your posts... tell me, what is your conclusion through all of this? Please clarify and present evidence!
 
dc1971 said:
So, WTC Dust, I'm very confused in reading all of your posts... tell me, what is your conclusion through all of this? Please clarify and present evidence!
Click to expand...

My conclusion is in my .sig and evidence for that is in my avatar.
 
WTC Dust said:
If you suggest that contamination occurred, you should be able to back up your claims. I told you about the cigarette butts nearby. They weren't actually touching my samples, but they were nearby. Other than that...don't know what would have contaminated my samples.

They were subjected to changing temperatures and humidity, but never to direct precipitation.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

Prove that there is no bum piss, drunken peoples' puke, or anything else for that matter.

How did a cigarette but get near that, but water couldn't?

How about soda? Any contamination from that?

You cannot account for the first 8 years of it's existance. If you can, please show that work here.

It should look like this.

11 Sept. 01 - Sample came to rest where I found it.

12 Sept. 01 - ______________________________
13 Sept. 01 - ______________________________
14 Sept. 01 - ______________________________

Fill in the blanks. Account for all contamination.

Good luck!
 
triforcharity said:
Prove it.

Prove that there is no bum piss, drunken peoples' puke, or anything else for that matter.

How did a cigarette but get near that, but water couldn't?

How about soda? Any contamination from that?

You cannot account for the first 8 years of it's existance. If you can, please show that work here.

It should look like this.

11 Sept. 01 - Sample came to rest where I found it.

12 Sept. 01 - ______________________________
13 Sept. 01 - ______________________________
14 Sept. 01 - ______________________________

Fill in the blanks. Account for all contamination.

Good luck!
Click to expand...


I can account for all of the OBSERVED contamination.
 
WTC Dust said:
Other than that...don't know what would have contaminated my samples.
Click to expand...

And that's exactly the problem. You don't know. IF the dust was from the WTC, which you haven't established at all, then you don't know what happened to it for the 8 or 9 years it sat there.
 
phunk said:
And that's exactly the problem. You don't know. IF the dust was from the WTC, which you haven't established at all, then you don't know what happened to it for the 8 or 9 years it sat there.
Click to expand...

If something happened to it, something happened to it. What do you think happened to it? Don't you think that other researchers will still be interested in collecting the rest of it? Remember, I only took a fraction of what is there and plan to share.
 
It's time for some of you to lighten up on the subject of 9/11. There was nothing funny about the attacks of 9/11, but human beings are funny, quirky creatures. Our human nature is to make fun.

I think there is a phenomena going on here that is having two completely different effects. Confusion is the phenomena.

For the dedicated skeptic, this confusion about 9/11 generates anger. They have to disbelieve their own eyes to believe the official government plane crash conspiracy theory. They have to, somehow, swallow their curiosity as to why no planes were actually ever found in the four places they were said to be. You also have to accept that our military forces are so completely incompetent that they were unable to intercept any of these four planes, when they had hours of notice that stuff was going wrong. All this confusion brings up anger from the determined skeptic when information is smartly supplied to them that pokes at their confusion.

For the comedian, this confusion has led to a lack of very good jokes about 9/11. You have to know something about something in order to make a joke, and most people really don't know what happened. The best jokes are clever, and to the exact point, and if you are confused about something, it's hard to get there.
 

Attachments

  • 911 joke.jpg
    911 joke.jpg
    31.2 KB · Views: 26
Last edited:
Ok, folks, this has descended into minute nitpickery over irrelevancies and done nothing more than enabled an attention seeking stunt. I think we all need to remember what Ryan Mackey laid out in this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118389

This part specifically applies:
R.Mackey said:
Strong Delusion: Belief that is directly contradicted by unambiguous fact.
The Strong Delusion is, in short, a factual error. This is often supported by argument to authority and reliance on quote-mining, out-of-date, or retracted information in an attempt to justify the error. A common example is ”No Aircraft Hit the Pentagon,” which is a Strong Delusion because it is directly contradicted by extensive physical evidence.
​
Click to expand...
Factual error: The towers were turned to dust.
Arguments employed to support this error: Ambiguous allegations about the characteristics of this supposed "dust", none of which get tied into the collapse mechanism or demonstrate what's supposedly wrong with the currently established narrative. Also: Random recitations of standard trutherisms.

Further factual errors: Multiple and myriad ones; there are allegations to energy weaponry and fake planes, for example. No support is given for either.

This is nothing more than a display of a strong irreducible delusion. No discussion regarding the dust or any other point is productive. The convergence of multiple lines of evidence already establishes what happened. Nothing posted by the OP even indicates a problem with that, let alone establishes a logical, reasonable alternative. This thread has been done for some time now, and all we're doing is kicking around a corpse of a discussion.
R.Mackey said:
Conspiracy theories in general and 9/11 conspiracies in particular are not logical, so debating with folks who believe in them is usually pointless and leads to a lot of yelling. It's better to just find the root mistake, point it out for everyone, and let it go. Humans are simply not logical creatures.
Click to expand...
The root mistake is identified above. Letting it go now. This thread and poster goes on ignore from here on out.
 
WTC Dust said:
That fly ash is exactly opposite in character to the dust I found. You can make a comparison of fly ash and one of my dust samples in Data Slide #3.
Click to expand...

Do you have electron micrographs of your dust so we can make a proper comparison? Is that some of the evidence you will be presenting at your seminar?

I thought it was interesting because 1) fly ash can be as much as 40% iron by weight (and hence respond to a magnet), 2) the SEM slide of fly ash shows a similar "foam" structure to what you describe, and 3) fly ash is described in Wikipedia (and yes, I know all about Wikipedia) as "heterogeneous", which is the exact word you have been using to describe your metallic foam.

Just some thoughts.
 
WTC Dust said:
It's time for some of you to lighten up on the subject of 9/11. There was nothing funny about the attacks of 9/11, but human beings are funny, quirky creatures. Our human nature is to make fun.
Click to expand...

Who here is making fun?
 
I expressed my opinion on the idea of making jokes 9/11 upthread. It hasn't changed.

BTW, WTC Dust, if 9/11 was a "good" day for anyone, it was me; I met the woman who is now my wife that day in a chat room as I was looking for news. Even with that, it was anything but a "good" day.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Ok, folks, this has descended into minute nitpickery over irrelevancies and done nothing more than enabled an attention seeking stunt. I think we all need to remember what Ryan Mackey laid out in this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118389

This part specifically applies:

​
Factual error: The towers were turned to dust.
Arguments employed to support this error: Ambiguous allegations about the characteristics of this supposed "dust", none of which get tied into the collapse mechanism or demonstrate what's supposedly wrong with the currently established narrative. Also: Random recitations of standard trutherisms.

Further factual errors: Multiple and myriad ones; there are allegations to energy weaponry and fake planes, for example. No support is given for either.

This is nothing more than a display of a strong irreducible delusion. No discussion regarding the dust or any other point is productive. The convergence of multiple lines of evidence already establishes what happened. Nothing posted by the OP even indicates a problem with that, let alone establishes a logical, reasonable alternative. This thread has been done for some time now, and all we're doing is kicking around a corpse of a discussion.

​
The root mistake is identified above. Letting it go now. This thread and poster goes on ignore from here on out.
Click to expand...

Bravo, bravo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom