Then why are you afraid to show us your analysis of the dust sample that you have?
Scared enough to know that what you claim, & the dust sample that you have was contaminated, can't prove anything you say to be the truth?
That's why we think you're lying, of course it's not hard to point out a liar. Through their ignorance or their emotions, we can tell.
Afraid?
In response to your requests for me to show you everything I have, I have planned a seminar on December 1st. I didn't think of the seminar before I came to JREF, but it seemed the only way I could really do things right.
I want to show you the evidence that my samples came from the WTC. I want to show you the evidence that my samples match the published literature on the dust. I want to show you that my samples are heterogeneous on a macro and micro scale. I want to show you that some of my samples are metallic and magnetic.
NONE of this is going to be debunkable. The contamination issue might get me. The age of the samples might get me. Those are real weaknesses in my theory. But nothing in the paragraph above is weak.
Let's say the samples are contaminated. Does this mean that they are different from the samples of published researchers, who also scooped the dust off the ground where they found it? No. It means that they are the same. My samples are exactly as old as the other samples, too. Just the analysis on them was begun at a later time.
My samples are not perfect, but no real life samples ever are, and I say this coming from dozens of years in research laboratories working on samples. You want to talk about contamination? With living tissue, contamination isn't an abstract worry. It's a constant worry, but you don't necessarily throw out your samples, even if they do become contaminated. You just need to know how to accommodate the contamination.
Example: I used to dissect out heart valves from the hearts of recently deceased individuals and those undergoing heart transplant surgery. Were any of these samples sterile when I obtained them? No. Even with the best of sterile technique, since these heart valves had recently resided within the bodies of living human beings, I couldn't presume that they were uncontaminated by bacteria. Solution? Use antibacterial agents in my storage media.
Let's pretend some of those heart valves did get contaminated. Did that mean we were unable to study them? No, because heart valve structure isn't dependent on bacterial contamination. You must proceed, despite these types of obstacles when working with real life samples, and contamination is always a worry.
Getting closer to the idea of a perfect sample:
It would have been the best, scientifically, to capture a representative sample of the dust that evolved from the World Trade Center as it was destroyed. In order to have done that, I would need to have had some way to capture the dust that went straight up into the sky, and I would have had to develop a way to stoichiometrically account for the amount of dust that went up into the sky and the amount that fell on the ground. Then you could get the proportions right when you did mass composition analysis.
