• 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.
WTC Dust said:
Again you fail to see the win where win is obvious.

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

She could have put her first drawings as a 2-year-old on record as a reply to the NIST report, and NIST would have been legally obliged to take it to their records.

But also on record you will find a lot more that refutes her work, and refutes it thoroughly.
 
WTC Dust said:
Listen carefully: Those reports contain good data, as far as I'm concerned. I have no reason to disrespect any of those scientists,
Click to expand...

But you said "their analysis universally sucks".

WTC Dust said:
except the strange crew who have associated themselves with Steven Jones. Those men I assume to be off in some way.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume this?


WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...

I asked you to state, by way of example, what you consider stinking (in the RJ Lee Group report).
Which assumptions do you find questionable? Be specific!
Which conclusions do you find questionable? Be specific


WTC Dust said:
Nobody decides who is right. The universe is what it is.
Click to expand...

Well, earlier you seemed to say that you have decided that Judy Wood gets it right, when you wrote
WTC Dust said:
...
Nobody gets it right until one person gets it right. Often, that person is ridiculed. Then, eventually, everyone gets it right. It takes a lot of guts to tell the entire world that they are wrong.
...
Click to expand...
Or would you not say that Wood is right?


WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...
If someone writes about John Hutchinson, then automatically that someone also has a theory? Amazing! Must be a new Hutchinson effect! :D

What is her theory? In a nutshell?
 
WTC Dust said:
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!
...
Click to expand...

Look here:

See:
Scene 1: Building
Scene 2: Dust.
WTF?
Easy. Gravitational collapse converted potential energy into frakture energy - concrete was dustified. "Poof".
(Note: The dust was NOT created by the explosions! These merely break some critical support elements. Pretty much all explosions pass without any visible amount of dust created. All the dust is generated in the gravitationally driven collapse).

The same happened to the twin towers, except that some critical supports were destroyed by planes and fires instead of explosions.
The gravity driven collapse dustified a lot of concrete and drywall.
Not steel.
The evidence for this is in all the videos of the collapse, in all the photos of GZ, in the various studies of the dust, and in the forensic investigation on close to 200,000 tons of SOLID structural steel hauled from GZ
 
WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really? Cite your source.


WTC Dust said:
Jet fuel fires in open air conditions don't get that hot. Jet fuel isn't magic. It's just a hydrocarbon.
Click to expand...

JUST a hydrocarbon that started 5 acres of fires over 5 floors instantly. But hey, the Titanic was just a boat too......:rolleyes:
 
Oystein said:
If someone writes about John Hutchinson, then automatically that someone also has a theory?
Click to expand...

If someone writes about the Hutchison Effect as a valid scientific principle, I have to assume that any theory that the person brings forth is more of a psychotic delusion or infantile babbling.

At the very best, if Judy buys that crap, she has suffered some loss of cognitive abilities since her last block of instruction on engineering.
 
Originally Posted by WTC Dust
Again you fail to see the win where win is obvious.

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

this was the first and last victory Dr. Wood shall have, as far as her "theory" is concerned.

and btw, a lot of other BS crap is on record with the government. lots of **** ing nonesense gets sent to them on a regular basis. it means nothing...and will lead to nothing.

well..nothing but lots of laughs..here at JREF.

:)
 
WTC Dust said:
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?
Click to expand...

Lots. Especially considering the many many hundreds of square feet of drywall and insulation that would be included.
 
WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...

5 WTC would have been in the way for the most part.

Want to continue? I've got all night....
 
WTC Dust said:
OK. I'm hearing ya. But if you had evidence that an airplane crash didn't destroy the World Trade Center, how would you go about publishing it?

Would you do like Steven Jones did and publish in a pay-per-paper open source journal and call it "peer-reviewed" to the high heavens?

Even Dr. Wood has exactly zero peer reviewed papers, although she's sued on behalf of the US government and taken it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

No, because I would never try to publish something so utterly stupid and insane.

How did that work out for her? I mean, the supreme court and all......
 
triforcharity said:
Lots. Especially considering the many many hundreds of square feet of drywall and insulation that would be included.
Click to expand...

It appears to me that, with a far smaller floor area, the dust from the Balzac verinage is about half as dense as that from the towers at initiation of collapse. Given that sheetrock is more frangible than concrete by an order of magnitude, I should expect the dust to be far more dense in the collapse of the towers.
 
WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...
What kind of "research scientist" has never used a Bunsen burner?
 
WTC Dust said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why do they fireproof steel?

You obviously have not ever talked about these things with actual fire fighters or actual structural engineers.
Any structural engineer will tell you that steel beams will succumb to the most ordinary fires VERY quickly if not properly coated with fireproofing.
 
leftysergeant said:
Of course it would. It was burning wood products, plastics and flesh.

The smoke even looks like the last landfill fire I fought.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It smelled exactly like a landfill fire, because, in essence, it was.

The orange colored smoke usually indicates something natural, like brush and things like that. Considering the amoun of trees and plants in and around GZ, that is most likely the origins of the orange smoke.
 
WTC Dust said:
OK. I'm hearing ya. But if you had evidence that an airplane crash didn't destroy the World Trade Center, how would you go about publishing it?^
Click to expand...

Step 1: Write a well-formed paper that actually describes a theory, lists assumptions, references other scientific works (scientific - not the Hutchinson crap), presents data in a well-ordered fashion, analyses the data (quantitative, where applicable: How much energy? How much dust? such things) with a view to the theory you want to support, and draws conclusions
Step 2: Submit it to respected scientific journals

WTC Dust said:
...
Even Dr. Wood has exactly zero peer reviewed papers, although she's sued on behalf of the US government and taken it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Any fool can make any foolish claim and mail it to any court.
How did the US Supreme Court rule? Is the USSC the proper institution that you go to if you want to find out about an engineering problem?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom