WTC dust

[dtugg]

And you say you get paychecks for this? I'm not thinking that's true.

Not to mention the notion that he has apparently been working on this "research" full time for years yet has published nothing. I mean, Judy Woods work is a bunch of gibberish, but at least she has something.

 

[Thunder]

not worth it

 

[triforcharity]

Not to mention the notion that he has apparently been working on this "research" full time for years yet has published nothing.

Yeah, especially considering I fight fire full time, but just tis year, I have published 4 papers in respectable journals about fire science. One on fuel loads in highrise buildings, and why they must stay as designed.

But hey, he could be working on a HUGE 10,000 page paper....

 

[WTC Dust]

Why do you think their analysis universally sucks? Can you point out one flaw, by way of example, in the RJ Lee Group report, for starters?



How do you decide who gets it right?
We at JREF generally want to see evidence.
We haven't seen any presented by you.
So excuse us if we remain highly dobtful.



Strawman. Nobody says that.



It is not a theory. Judy Wood makes no claim whatsoever about her imagined DEW! There is nothing to be debunked!



Actual debunking requires an actual theory first!

Listen carefully: Those reports contain good data, as far as I'm concerned. I have no reason to disrespect any of those scientists, except the strange crew who have associated themselves with Steven Jones. Those men I assume to be off in some way.

ETA: The CONCLUSIONS of the reports are questionable. The ASSUMPTIONS of the reports are questionable. The data is fine by me. It's what they say about the data that stinks.


Nobody decides who is right. The universe is what it is.

The funny thing that many of you say is two-fold. You say Dr. Wood doesn't have a theory, but then you can't tell me why she writes about John Hutchison. If you can't tell me why she writes about John Hutchison, then you have no reason to say she doesn't have a theory. You just don't know what it is. Gotta work hard to debunk this lady. She's good. She's brilliant.

 

[triforcharity]

not worth it

You should have left that. It was good!

 

[triforcharity]

Hey WTC Dust,

I posted some pictures, care to address them?

 

[WTC Dust]

If actually had a theory (she doesn't), calculations would be necessary to demonstrate to sane people that it is even possible.

She doesn't do any calculations be she can't.



How? Until you explain how that could possibly happen, no sane person in the world will ever take your seriously.

You are not capable of clairvoyance, dtugg, so stop saying you are. It creeps me out because I don't like magical thinkers.

1+2=3 Tadah! Calculation! There. I've proved I can do calculations. I'm not going to do calculations on demand. However, I will discuss any pertinent calculations that you show me.

 

[triforcharity]

You are not capable of clairvoyance, dtugg, so stop saying you are. It creeps me out because I don't like magical thinkers.

1+2=3 Tadah! Calculation! There. I've proved I can do calculations. I'm not going to do calculations on demand. However, I will discuss any pertinent calculations that you show me.

If 1+2=3, why haven't you addressed ANY of the photos that I have provided?

 

[TJM]

I don't believe, not for a second, that WTC Dust is a New Yorker or has been anywhere near the pile.

WTC Dust:

I've noticed that you're ignoring direct questions from people who live in NYC and have been to the WTC site.

WHY?

 

[WTC Dust]

BZZZTTTT!!!!

What's that? Oh, that is my ************ meter going off......

So, you're claiming that the steel was impervious to the heat of thousands of gallons of jet fuel and hundreds of tons of combustables?

I call horse****, and my training tells me that you are wrong.

If you think a jet fuel fire is going to seriously affect the strength of steel, you aren't alone. But you are in the large majority of people who are wrong.

Jet fuel fires in open air conditions don't get that hot. Jet fuel isn't magic. It's just a hydrocarbon.

 

[TjW]

The energy weapon theory, which I'm willing to drop instantly as soon as it is effectively debunked, says that the energy came from the material itself. In other words, the weapon tapped into the energy that is contained within the material and used this energy to destroy the WTC buildings and damage others. You wouldn't have to pay ConEd.

I'm guessing the closest thing in fictional work that describes the weapon is the "flux capacitor" used in Back to the Future. Remember how the professor throws a banana and a beer can inside it in order to generate 2.1 gigawatts of power? Something like that.

As a researcher, you should be able to research the phrase "curve of binding energy".
Where is iron on that curve? What does tell you about releasing "the energy that is contained within the material"?

 

[WTC Dust]

Have you tried my VW experiment?

Suspend a bowling ball 6" above your foot. Allow it to fall.

Hurt much? Not really. But a little bit.

Suspend a bowling ball 12' above your foot and repeat.

So, does 12 feet hurt more or less than 6"?

The appropriate gedanken experiment is the following:
Imagine dropping a 4 inch thick concrete floor twelve feet.
How much dust are you going to get?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

In all seriousness, from one research scientist to another: You may not be as funny as our previous champion parodist, but you're much better at staying in character. So far as I can recall, no JREF parodist has surpassed your portrayal of the utter cluelessness and Dunning-Kruger^WPness we've come to associate with arrogant, lying truthers.

Nothing you've said touches me. I'm neither arrogant, nor lying.

I never said you were. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I've been assuming you really are a research scientist, as you claimed. From that assumption I concluded you are a parodist impersonating an arrogant, lying truther.

1. My primary field of research has been 9/11 for these past years. I am independent.

Perhaps my assumption was wrong.

Saying I'm not a scientist isn't going to work. My paychecks say otherwise.

And you say you get paychecks for this? I'm not thinking that's true.

Perhaps The Onion employs research scientists.

That's as likely as anything WTC Dust has posted.

 

[TexasJack]

I don't believe, not for a second, that WTC Dust is a New Yorker or has been anywhere near the pile.

I actually do, and if she is who I think she is, it explains everything.

 

[DGM]

The appropriate gedanken experiment is the following:
Imagine dropping a 4 inch thick concrete floor twelve feet.
How much dust are you going to get?

Depends......do you want to include the drywall?

 

[dtugg]

The funny thing that many of you say is two-fold. You say Dr. Wood doesn't have a theory, but then you can't tell me why she writes about John Hutchison. If you can't tell me why she writes about John Hutchison, then you have no reason to say she doesn't have a theory. You just don't know what it is. Gotta work hard to debunk this lady. She's good. She's brilliant.

I already told you. But I guess I'll say it again. She found supposed anomalies in images of the WTC. She thinks they look similar to supposed anomalies photographed by some fraud named John Hutchinson. That is basically it. She has not even attempted to string any of this into a coherent theory.

 

[WTC Dust]

Sane people need proof in order to believe that a device exists which can dustifiy a hundred thousand tons of steel in ten seconds.

You of course have zero. You can't even begin to describe how such a device might work.

Why should sane people believe you?

My god, dtugg! What is it with this clairvoyance thing you've got going on?

Stop claiming you know what is inside the minds of other people. It makes you sounds spooky.

Scene 1: Steel buildings.
Scene 2: Dust.

WTF happened? Don't tell me thermite, and don't tell me planes. GO!











After you do this exercise, you'll see why I'm talking about Judy Wood and asking you all to debunk her science. She's talking about advanced technology, but she's making sense. I'd like to see her science picked apart, and you all are the premier debunkers, so go ahead.

 

[dtugg]

You are not capable of clairvoyance, dtugg, so stop saying you are. It creeps me out because I don't like magical thinkers.

1+2=3 Tadah! Calculation! There. I've proved I can do calculations. I'm not going to do calculations on demand. However, I will discuss any pertinent calculations that you show me.

I understand that for mentally ill people, the ability to see through nonsense might seem like supernatural powers, but to sane people it is just called not being an idiot.

 

[WTC Dust]

When idiots make grossly incorrect statements, it is easy to infer their ignorance without having supernatural powers. For example, when you said the floors of the WTC were made with eight inch steel beams, you demonstrated your extreme ignorance about the construction of the WTC.



Nope. Zero. The floors were lightweight concrete poured on a steel pans supported by lightweight trusses.

Now that you have confirmed that you are completely ignorant about the construction of the WTC, do you think that sane people should listen to anything that you say regarding the subject?

You're ignoring that I said it was an estimate. Those weren't hard numbers.

 

[WTC Dust]

You would have been able to see the 4&5 WTC buildings. Well, at least what was left of 4WTC.

Here is an image looking down Cortlandt.

[qimg]http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/WTC%20Attack/FEMAphoto_WTC-109.jpg[/qimg]

4WTC is seen on the left. The building with the flag is 1 Liberty Plaza.

Now, as you can see, from this vantage point, he is at least 15' above street level.

I base this on this photo
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Wtc-photo.jpg

and this basic map
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/230806wtcplan.jpg

You can also use Ctrl +/- to zoom in abd out of the huge aerial photo, and see a large pile to the south (left) side of 4WTC.

And you couldn't see this above a 6' fence?

I'm talking about the area directly above where WTC 1 and WTC 2 previously stood. I told you I could see some pieces sticking up, but not where those buildings stood. I expected to see a pile of debris there, and did not. I did see a heavy fog of fumes rising up, though.