WTC dust

[TJM]

Her case made it all the way to the US Supreme Court, and Dr. Wood's work up to that point is on record. I call that a win.

The case did not make it to the Supreme Court.

Fail.

 

[WTC Dust]

Anybody can get a case to the Supreme Court, even if it is laughably insane and totally without merit like your hero Judy Wood's. All you have to do is keep filing appeals. The court system is another thing you are obviously completely ignorant about.

Again you fail to see the win where win is obvious.

Dr. Wood's work is on record. With the US government. Sweet!

 

[WTC Dust]

The case did not make it to the Supreme Court.

Fail.

Eh. They didn't rule on the case, no, but it was taken there.
Anyway, that was a few years ago.

 

[dtugg]

Again you fail to see the win where win is obvious.

Dr. Wood's work is on record. With the US government. Sweet!

It takes a special kind of crazy person to believe that being laughed out of court is a win.

 

[grandmastershek]

Eh. They didn't rule on the case, no, but it was taken there.
Anyway, that was a few years ago.

Wow so if I get a parking ticket and go into the building where the SC is then I can claim my case made it to the Supreme Court?

 

[TJM]

Eh. They didn't rule on the case, no, but it was taken there.
Anyway, that was a few years ago.

Add the US legal system to things you don't understand. Moving on.

 

[CompusMentus]

RMackey's so-called debunking forced a condition at the very beginning that wasn't necessary, and then he debunked his own story. He didn't debunk Dr. Wood.

What condition did Ryan Mackey force?


Compus

 

[alienentity]

Neither does Dr. Wood's theory. She doesn't do the calculations because the calculations are irrelevant to her theory. She doesn't say the building contents got turned into a gas. She says that the contents got turned into powder/dust and so do I.

Stundied!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6476031#post6476031

Yes folks, step right up and get your advanced degree in 'Research Science' from Whackadoodle University. You'll learn how to avoid all mathematics and even the scientific method while you develop your theories!
Our advanced courses teach you:

- How to avoid peer-reviewed publications
- How to evade legitimate questions regarding your claims
- How to guarantee that your research remains confined to obscure internet sites, to avoid any relevance to the outside world

Enroll today. Hurry, availability for our 2-week PhD is limited!! Order Now!! We'll also throw in a set of Stainless Steel Knives, which are guaranteed not to dustify even when chopping tomatoes. Amazing.

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut, How are you this morning? Let me tell you something. When I walked to see the damage for myself on Friday morning after the attacks, I expected to see a pile of steel. I walked to within two blocks of the WTC site and saw a ten foot fence instead. No pile was visible above the fence. You could not see even one tiny bit of the pile itself, where the buildings previously stood. You could only see a few pieces sticking up, plus huge waves of fumes.

And do you really think a research scientist can't figure out the equation for kinetic energy if they have internet access? Even if I didn't know it already? ha

4 inch floors, 110 floors, you take 4 inches and you multiply by 110, this is how high the floors would be. Need more help Ms Research Scientist. The WTC towers were 95 percent air, need help figuring out how high 5 percent of the WTC towers is? Got Math, Ms Research Scientist? No it is clear you have paranoid idiotic steel turned to dust delusions, no math for you!

You can't figure out the formula for kinetic energy, yoiu have no clue or you would not say this incrediblly stupid statement.

...
But something that also needs to be accounted for is the strange behavior captured on these videos. The "plane" didn't get stuck in the side of the building. The "plane" didn't twist, crumple, slow down, or change its trajectory in any way that would indicate that it was in the process of crashing into the exterior beams of WTC 2. There was no visible plane debris falling to the ground. There is a FOX News video of what looks like a "nose-out".

... I pay attention to what destroyed the WTC, and even if a plane did crash into the building (which I doubt), it didn't destroy the building, so it's not what I'm interested in studying.

A Research Scientist understands what a plane hitting a steel building at 470 and 590 mph does, you have no clue. This is where the kinetic energy, which you can't do, comes in handy.

I asked for what happen to the steel when it turned to dust.

Hi Beachnut,

Dust doesn't have a defined chemical formula.

Good for you, you are a research scientist who can't explain their own moronic claim. What school did you go to? You claim steel turned to dust then lie and say the dust on 911 does not have a defined chemical formula. Tell me what is the chemical compistion of steel which YOU said turned to dust. If you can't explain this you are not a Research Scientist.

Why did you calculate vaporization figures? Are you saying the steel became a gas by heating? Neither Judy Wood nor I say this. So, you're doing your own calculation on your own theory. This has nothing to do with the theory that I'm working on, because my theory doesn't talk about vaporization at all.

Neither does Dr. Wood's theory. She doesn't do the calculations because the calculations are irrelevant to her theory. She doesn't say the building contents got turned into a gas. She says that the contents got turned into powder/dust and so do I.

The dust cloud seen on 9/11 wasn't a gas. It was a colloidal suspension of particles in air. Colloidal suspension /= gas.

Judy Wood's ideas on 911 are insane, if you believe her claims you are not a Research Scientist, or able to do simple math and physics; got that kinetic energy formula yet?

Bill, Perhaps the power was drawn from the energy contained within matter itself. You don't need to tap into deep energy sources. The energy is right where the damage was done. No extension cords needed, either.

It gets dumber, and dumber. Your post indicates you never took physics, and may have avoided all science.
Right, Mr Fusion for Ms Research Scientist WTC Dust. Back to the Future pops up to save Judy's moronically insane Beam Weapon. Someone draw up the Mr Fusion (BTTF power) Beam Weapon.

The thing about insults is that (however fun it is for sadists) it doesn't debunk. I want debunking, which requires a lot more effort. You haven't really demonstrated a decent understanding of the events of 9/11. Is that why you choose insults?

Your delusional claims and statements debunk you! You are the typical self-debunking truther. You come here claiming you are Ms Research Scientist, and you spew nonsense grade school kids would understand are lies and you offer zero specifics, you can't even produce a formula for kinetic energy, you have no clue what science is and can't do math.

... contained glass fibers. ... contained metallic elements. So far, to my trained eye, everyone is analyzing the dust as if it were one type.

You don't have a trained eye.

... Dust doesn't have a defined chemical formula.

You just said it had glass, what is the chemical formula for glass. Gee, where did the glass fibers come from? Are you telling lies? One second the dust has no chemical formula, the next it has glass in it.
You meant you are a Research Science Fiction Conspiracy Theorists with no evidence.

 

[Arus808]

11 pages people!! really, you're giving credit to someoen who is pushing JUDY WOOD"S story!!!

YOU guys are better than that!

 

[bill smith]

I'm actually working on getting my results published, so stay tuned.

Science isn't always easy, especially when you're going against the prevailing paradigm. What's more important than early publishing is getting the right answer.

Dr. Wood's book should come out soon. That will be good. Perhaps my articles will see the light some day. The thing about not doing 9/11 as a profession is that I'm not caught up in the "publish or perish" mentality.
I'm in it to win it, and eventually that does involve publishing articles.

What do you make of this video about the 'Spire' ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI&NR=1

 

[bill smith]

11 pages people!! really, you're giving credit to someoen who is pushing JUDY WOOD"S story!!!

YOU guys are better than that!

Judy is beginning to go mainstream. Clearly.

 

[leftysergeant]

Judy is beginning to go mainstream. Clearly.

Like Baron von Muenchhausen.

 

[Thunder]

Judy is beginning to go mainstream. Clearly.

Yes, its now acceptable and widely believed that WTC 1, WTC 2, & WTC 7, were turned into dust.

 

[Lyrandar]

She doesn't ignore false ideas. She just doesn't put it on her website.

Example: There are no calculations about vaporization on her website because the WTC wasn't vaporized.

I'm not sure why you quoted me in this post, since I don't think this actually answers either my question about what evidence you would consider to constitute a valid counterargument or my complaint about Dr. Wood being very prone to backing her own arguments up with nothing more than her own belief that the given phenomena and cause make no sense, as opposed to actual calculations and expert opinions about whether they make sense or not.

As long as I'm posting, I'll add two more topics that I'm now curious about - exactly what the "new physics" you mention are as well as how you reconcile your own estimate of the height of the debris pile with the posted photographic evidence. Would you mind shedding some light on either of those questions?

 

[Thunder]

how you reconcile your own estimate of the height of the debris pile with the posted photographic evidence. Would you mind shedding some light on either of those questions?

more that enough evidence has been provided, with photographs and state-of-the-art digital satelite and surveying imagery, proving that parts of the pile at GZ was many stories above street level.

one can only now logically conclude that denial of these facts are due to purely pathological or ideological reasons, or both.

there is no other possible explenation.

 

[DGM]

Judy is beginning to go mainstream. Clearly.

It's more like all you have left. A bit sad if you ask me.

 

[kookbreaker]

I haven't earned any money from my 9/11 research. I earn money from other research, but that just pays the bills. It's not what drives me.

You said your primary research for the past few years was 9/11. What other 'research' do you do and how is it so lucrative that you only have to work on it part time and still be able to pay the rent in NYC?

 

[TjW]

The buildings weren't vaporized. Who is saying that they were?

I'm telling you heat had nothing to do with the destruction of the WTC. It was an electrical process.

Oh, I'm sorry. I was. I was trying to allow you the absolute minimum required energy to meet the conditions of all the steel having gone missing.
We know that steel is iron with a few impurities mixed in (alloyed) with it.
We know from the sampling of the dust that the dust present after the towers fell did not contain enough iron to account for the steel being converted to dust.
I was going to allow you the option, however silly, that the iron had literally vaporized, then blown away without being redeposited on anything in the vicinity.
If you reject that, then we must consider other options. Just remember that it's your claim, not mine, that the steel ( and thus, the iron present in the steel) is missing.

So, let's say that the iron did not vaporize, but through some unknown process was transmuted into the other elements that were found in the dust samples. In theory, you can take two light atoms (like Hydrogen) and fuse them together into a single heavier atom and get out the difference in binding energy. That's fusion. In theory, you can take a single heavy atom (like Uranium) and split it into lighter atoms and get out the difference in binding energy. That's fission.
But because of the curve of binding energy, you only get energy out when the resulting elements are more stable than the initial element. Moving toward less stable atoms means that you have to add energy -- in exactly the same huge mass-equivalent amounts that you could extract if you were going the other direction.
And the most stable atom is... Iron 56.
Transmuting iron into the elements actually found in the dust means that you not only need enough energy to overcome the mechanical binding energy of the steel, you also need enough additional energy to create the additional nuclear binding energy of the new element.

So if the iron is, as you contend, missing, you should be able to explain where the energy to make it go missing came from. It didn't come from the iron. Iron is a nuclear ash. You can't "burn" it into lighter or heavier elements to extract energy.
And the amount is huge. I won't begin to try to calculate the amount of energy required to turn two hundred thousand tons of iron into silicon, but a rule of thumb for atomic bombs is that about fifty thousandths of a gram is converted for each kiloton of yield.

You should take note that my objections to your contention don't care how the energy is applied. This is an argument from first principles.

 

[GlennB]

^^^ dazzling debunk.