WTC dust

[dafydd]

The word to use is "foaming".

Dr. Wood calls it "dustification" but that's because she did not want to bias the observer, so she made up a fanciful word.

Because of my discovery, we don't have to use the fanciful word any more. We now know the process: foaming.

How does this foaming cause warped edges in steel that has been turned to dust?

 

[WTC Dust]

10 hours later, many responses to other posts, but not a squeak on the post above. The house of cards is missing a foundation or two...

Kid,

Have you read the entire thread, and have you visited my website?

Tracy

 

[dafydd]

Kid,
have you visited my website?

Tracy

No.

 

[WTC Dust]

There's also this glaring hole in the theory:

Even if you accept all her stated facts at face value--the dust is from the WTC collapse, and it contains a high ratio of foamified steel--there's no chain of logic towards concluding that it used to be part of the steel structure of the building. It could have been foamified steel dust sitting around in the buildings' substructure since their construction for all she knows.

Her whole premise is based on a long series of bald assertions.

Oh, Chipmunk! You make me happy. You're talking about what I wanted to talk about at the very beginning!

The chain of custody is amazing! It's one link: me! I'm the scientist, and I'm the discoverer! It's so strange and coincidental/lucky/excellent. The dust has been in my possession under my storage conditions since its discovery and collection!

This never happens, or almost never. If you think of the best example of chain of custody issues, the OJ Simpson trial, you have certain people discovering the blood, other people collecting it, other people transporting it, other people analyzing it, other people storing it. The chain of custody gets long and difficult to document.

Me. I found it. I recovered it. I've been storing it. I could go touch it right now. But I'm really not doing much these days other than seeking a proper collaboration with a materials scientist. No other speciality will do, I think, for the fullest analysis of the dust.

I did a few obvious things, but I have not in any way finished my studies of the dust. I need a better lab to play around with, one that has tools and equipment that I don't have right now. And, honestly, it needs another voice.

My work is standing pretty alone right now. Yes, it goes along very well with the work of two other PhDs (Drs. Wood and Henry-Couannier) but each of us is alone studying things from our own perspective. I need a different pair of eyes on my work, and only a very highly trained set of eyes is going to satisfy me.

I'm putting it up for you all to look at, remember? I'm giving you all the opportunity to check it out, and seeking some of what you've given (although you could dump the snarkiness). I've made a discovery, and if there's obvious reasons why I'm wrong, I want to know about them before I go big time.

Better fall flat on your face in a small way, right?

 

[WTC Dust]

What do you think ? Would it be possible to extract only the metallic dust ? The rest would presumably be non-metallic.

Yes. Henry-Couannier does exactly this. He showed me his technique, and let me play around with Jones' samples.

 

[WildCat]

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying the wake of a boat continues in the forward direction after a boat stops. You want proof of this? hahaha

Haven't you ever been on a boat?

How about a submarine? Does that produce a wake? Does a flying airplane more resemble a boat traveling on the surface or a submarine traveling 500' deep?

 

[WTC Dust]

It seems an appropriately ghoulish enterprise - take some random dirt from NYC and sell it as 'Authentic WTC Dust'.... except that it is not 'authentic' by any reasonable measure.

It's as authentic as an Apple store in China....

I've thought about this a lot, actually. I think people would be mad at me for selling the dust whether or not it was actually WTC dust.

So the authenticity of the dust is separate from the act of selling it. Is it worse to sell authentic WTC dust, or is it worse to sell dust with a fake WTC label?

One thing is that the dust contains DNA, but not both types. I could avoid the ghoulishness aspect if I only consent to sell the type that doesn't have the DNA. Selling tiny bits of human beings? Ick.

I haven't actually sold any of it, yet, as you probably know. But I would be willing to overcome my natural disinclination to do this if it would serve a larger purpose. I need better equipment, after all, and rather than wait for an appropriate collaborator, I could just buy it myself with the proceeeds from the sale.

 

[dafydd]

Oh, Chipmunk! You make me happy. You're talking about what I wanted to talk about at the very beginning!

The chain of custody is amazing! It's one link: me! I'm the scientist, and I'm the discoverer! It's so strange and coincidental/lucky/excellent. The dust has been in my possession under my storage conditions since its discovery and collection!

This never happens, or almost never. If you think of the best example of chain of custody issues, the OJ Simpson trial, you have certain people discovering the blood, other people collecting it, other people transporting it, other people analyzing it, other people storing it. The chain of custody gets long and difficult to document.

Me. I found it. I recovered it. I've been storing it. I could go touch it right now. But I'm really not doing much these days other than seeking a proper collaboration with a materials scientist. No other speciality will do, I think, for the fullest analysis of the dust.

I did a few obvious things, but I have not in any way finished my studies of the dust. I need a better lab to play around with, one that has tools and equipment that I don't have right now. And, honestly, it needs another voice.

My work is standing pretty alone right now. Yes, it goes along very well with the work of two other PhDs (Drs. Wood and Henry-Couannier) but each of us is alone studying things from our own perspective. I need a different pair of eyes on my work, and only a very highly trained set of eyes is going to satisfy me.

I'm putting it up for you all to look at, remember? I'm giving you all the opportunity to check it out, and seeking some of what you've given (although you could dump the snarkiness). I've made a discovery, and if there's obvious reasons why I'm wrong, I want to know about them before I go big time.

Better fall flat on your face in a small way, right?

Do you actually read the posts?

 

[NoahFence]

Can someone ask that thing how DUST gets a warped edge?

 

[dafydd]

Can someone ask that thing how DUST gets a warped edge?

I did,but she ignores all questions and posts self congratulatory garbage. How does dust get a warped edge Dusty? Surely your scientific training would tell you that dust does not have an edge? Please quote me.

 

[alienentity]

Can someone ask that thing how DUST gets a warped edge?

Quoted

 

[alienentity]

Someone quote this for me, in case I really am on ignore:






Warped is right.....

(Deep Breath, noah.)

Ok. Dr. Blevins is it? Ok.
It is your contention that all the steel turned to dust, right?
So then, how does dust get a warped edge?

And this one

 

[WTC Dust]

Here's some further evidence about Tracy's focus in the aftermath of 9/11. Contrary to what she claims here, she doesn't appear to have been doing any serious research even in 2001.

And I wonder, Tracy, if any of this will affect your professional credibility. Do you really see yourself as a world-leading 9/11 researcher, considering the outrageous shenanigans you've been up to? The good news is that your involvement in 9/11
'research' is doing much more harm than good for your 'movement'. Any semblance of professionalism and respectability that someone like Steven Jones brings to the table is wiped out by the clownish gong-show that you, Judy Wood and FH Couannier are putting on.

For that I thank you sincerely! You truly are the 'best and brightest' 9/11 Truth has to offer! Amen to that!!

Gangbang lottery, 2002

feed://gangbanglottery.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?orderby=updated

If other people had gotten the answer correct at the beginning, I wouldn't have pursued this.

I'd much rather have been legalizing pot this whole time. I didn't expect to get caught up in 9/11.

 

[WTC Dust]

No one has denied that wakes exist. They don't "follow" boats or planes. They are waves caused by the craft, and the motion of the fluid as it flows into the space where the plane or boat has passed. But they are not "dragged", and in the case of a plane there isn't some huge column of air that is going to come flowing into the building behind the plane.

Whatever effects the airflow from the plane had were minor enough that we cannot detect them from the distance of the videos. Can you determine from the video that WTC moved when the plane hit? I don't remember how much, but I'm sure someone here can help. As I recall, the towers swayed as much as 7 feet at the top in heavy winds. You would not have been able to discern that from the ground.

BTW, how do you account for the holes in the buildings caused by your "fake planes"? Please be specific, you are an expert on this by your own admission.

Fine. You and I are good on wakes. They exist, and there isn't evidence of them in the videos of 9:03AM.

I think whatever weapon caused the entire damage to the WTC also caused the holes.

 

[dafydd]

Fine. You and I are good on wakes. They exist, and there isn't evidence of them in the videos of 9:03AM.

I think whatever weapon caused the entire damage to the WTC also caused the holes.

They were called airplanes.

 

[WTC Dust]

How about a submarine? Does that produce a wake? Does a flying airplane more resemble a boat traveling on the surface or a submarine traveling 500' deep?

If it is an object moving through a fluid, it creates a wake. The size and shape of the wake are determined by many things related to the shape of the object and the material properties of the fluid.

I don't know all the specifics. I'm not a physicist. I know that wakes follow
airplanes and that you don't see obvious evidence of a wake in the videos
of 9:03AM on 9/11. We good?

 

[dafydd]

If other people had gotten the answer correct at the beginning, I wouldn't have pursued this.

I'd much rather have been legalizing pot this whole time. I didn't expect to get caught up in 9/11.

Answer? What was the question?

 

[dafydd]

If it is an object moving through a fluid, it creates a wake. The size and shape of the wake are determined by many things related to the shape of the object and the material properties of the fluid.

I don't know all the specifics. I'm not a physicist. I know that wakes follow
airplanes and that you I don't see obvious evidence of a wake in the videos
of 9:03AM on 9/11. We good?

ftfy We're good,I don't know about you.

 

[WTC Dust]

This just gets funnier and funnier.

Too bad you're going to have to read it while you're on ignore from the OP.

Remember: Dr. Judy Wood is a brilliant scientist, kind gentlewoman, and American hero. Bye bye.

 

[WildCat]

If it is an object moving through a fluid, it creates a wake. The size and shape of the wake are determined by many things related to the shape of the object and the material properties of the fluid.

I don't know all the specifics. I'm not a physicist. I know that wakes follow
airplanes and that you don't see obvious evidence of a wake in the videos
of 9:03AM on 9/11. We good?

You are 100% wrong.