• 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.
Bolding mine:

WTC Dust said:
Afraid?

Yes, you are afraid to be found a fraud.

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.

And what is the right thing to do? Spread paranoia, make up fantastic stories that don't relate to you being on a road trip with your friend, or just spewing garbage to the masses & not give any shred of evidence to prove what you claim true?? Which is it???

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.

Show it to everyone on this forum, not to me, but to everyone. What's there to hide? Unless you don't feel like being shamed upon because you lack the evidence to prove what you claim.

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.

Actually, since you admit that it's contaminated, you just proved that it's debunkable without so much as an arguement from yourself.

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.

Yes, they are different because you didn't preserve the sample, you admitted that it's contaminated. Case closed!

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.

Then why didn't you seal the sample so that it wouldn't get contaminated?

(snipped)

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........

Dust doesn't "evolve" unless you contaminate it with something. You've already proved that your case has no merit.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
If you insist on calling me a truther when I'm telling you that I'm not a truther, that's nothing better than name-calling. AND you will never get what I'm telling you if you view me through that lens. So stay in confusion-zone as long as you want. I can't stop that.
Click to expand...

You are a Truther, denying it only makes you more insane.

So what? We've been called worse than "shills" or "government agents".

I get that you're lying to us, I've learned how to cope with your kind since 2001.

Here's what you're doing WTC Dust:

1: Deceive - Misrepresent the claims of 9/11 Researchers into "Strawman" issues that are easily knocked down.

2: Dodge - Try to avoid or ignore any 9/11 evidence that you can not explain away.

3: Deny - Refuse to acknowledge any irrefutable evidence given is relevant to the 9/11 arguement.

4: Discredit - Use any possible ad hominem accusation to ruin the credibility of 9/11 Researchers.

5: Repeat - Repeat the Conspiracy Theories constantly.
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
You haven't specifically described what the passage of time would have done to the sample, protected as it was from the weather. So here's your chance.
Click to expand...

But not from cigarette butts, bum piss, or drunken peoples' puke.

Yeah, other than that.......
 
excaza said:
Not without justification, they're not. You're just making assumptions to make your nutball 'theory' work, and obfuscate when asked to justify them.
Click to expand...

OK, then. Let's examine my assumptions.

Am I assuming that the dust is from the WTC? No. I intend to show that it is.

Am I assuming that the dust is heterogeneous? No. I intend to show that it is.

Am I assuming that some of the dust is metallic? No. Again, I intend to show that it is metallic.

So what do you think my assumptions are in this study? I am assuming that the laws of the physical universe never change. What else?
 
WTC Dust said:
OK, then. Let's examine my assumptions.

Am I assuming that the dust is from the WTC? No. I intend to show that it is.

Am I assuming that the dust is heterogeneous? No. I intend to show that it is.

Am I assuming that some of the dust is metallic? No. Again, I intend to show that it is metallic.

So what do you think my assumptions are in this study? I am assuming that the laws of the physical universe never change. What else?
Click to expand...

If they never change, then explain your passion for Judy Wood & the DEW theories?
 
excaza said:
Please show where my goalposts moved.
Click to expand...

"Show" as opposed to "tell"?

Showing would involve me scrolling back through this entire thread, and you can do that for yourself. I told you what I wanted to tell you.
 
WTC Dust said:
Yay! Back to the beginning. The dust was discovered in a building that was covered in WTC dust on 9/11. I can prove this with publicly available images.

Something else I never mentioned was that there is still a lot of it left. I only took a fraction of the dust that I have found. I'll wager a big bet that there is still at least a few thousand pounds of dust that has not been recovered from the neighborhood nooks and crannies.

Lower Manhattan needs a re-cleaning, and I think that the dust still residing in buildings is a potential hazard and should be attended to.
Click to expand...
How exactly do you know how much of this "sample" came from the towers? How do you know it hasn't been there for many years? The area hasn't been cleaned in at least eight years, who's to say it hasn't been fifty?
 
WTC Dust said:
"Show" as opposed to "tell"?

Showing would involve me scrolling back through this entire thread, and you can do that for yourself. I told you what I wanted to tell you.
Click to expand...

You've told us plenty, but failed to produce any sort of physical evidence on your part. It's not us, it's you!
 
You're assuming that the WTC turned to dust.

I'm also curious how you intend to prove your dust is even from the WTC, since there's a 9 year gap between 9/11 and when the samples came under your control. Unless there's a microscopic sign saying "this came from the WTC," it's going to be pretty much impossible to prove your case.
 
WTC Dust said:
"Show" as opposed to "tell"?

Showing would involve me scrolling back through this entire thread, and you can do that for yourself. I told you what I wanted to tell you.
Click to expand...

Quantitative data is the only thing I've asked for in this thread, and you've completely failed to provide any. We've got some nice word salad with a topping of obfuscation, but that's about it.
 
DGM said:
How exactly do you know how much of this "sample" came from the towers? How do you know it hasn't been there for many years? The area hasn't been cleaned in at least eight years, who's to say it hasn't been fifty?
Click to expand...

It matches the publicly available literature on the dust. I do not know "exactly" how much is from the towers for all my samples, but this knowledge isn't necessary when it comes to my main conclusion.

Zero percent of the magnetic foam came as a result of a plane crash. Any amount of magnetic foam in the dust must be accounted for.
 
excaza said:
Quantitative data is the only thing I've asked for in this thread, and you've completely failed to provide any. We've got some nice word salad with a topping of obfuscation, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

Is there any way you could pay attention to someone else for a while?
 
WTC Dust said:
It matches the publicly available literature on the dust.
Click to expand...

And you did this through...pictures? :covereyes

I do not know "exactly" how much is from the towers for all my samples, but this knowledge isn't necessary when it comes to my main conclusion.
Click to expand...
Riiiiiiight. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
Is there any way you could pay attention to someone else for a while?
Click to expand...

Is there any way you could actually do something scientific for a while? I'm sorry I'm asking for some sort of analysis, it's such a horrendously difficult thing that you couldn't possibly do in a few hours.
 
WTC Dust said:
It matches the publicly available literature on the dust. I do not know "exactly" how much is from the towers for all my samples, but this knowledge isn't necessary when it comes to my main conclusion.

Zero percent of the magnetic foam came as a result of a plane crash. Any amount of magnetic foam in the dust must be accounted for.
Click to expand...
Exactly. So you can't prove that this "magnetic foam" wasn't there before 9/11? You don't see a problem with this?


:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom