WTC dust

[excaza]

You guys (mostly) are supposed to be pro-debunkers.

Since my theory is standing strong, why not subject it to
the best? This is actually why rhetorical tactics like
clairvoyance and name calling are insufficient. I actually
want a debunking of my theory.

So instead of taking your grand "theory" to somewhere real, you take it to some obscure internet forum. Gotcha. You still going to claim you're a scientist?

I'm not sure how your "theory" is "standing strong" when you can't even present the composition of the "strange" dust in your possession. Not to mention your "theory" is self-debunking, since it relies on the assumption that no steel or other rubble was found at GZ. This assumption is ludicrous and borderline insanity. Debunked enough for you?

 

[beachnut]

You guys (mostly) are supposed to be pro-debunkers.

Since my theory is standing strong, why not subject it to
the best? This is actually why rhetorical tactics like
clairvoyance and name calling are insufficient. I actually
want a debunking of my theory.

Does anybody know what I'm talking about, yet?
Enough to debunk it?

Your inability to explain how your idiotic weapon destroyed the WTC, make you self-debunking.

Your theory is a Beam Weapon you can't specify or explain the energy required to turn steel to dust. You can't even specify what the steel dust is made of. You have no clue what kinetic energy is.

You have an insane delusion as your theory. You debunk yourself.

 

[WTC Dust]

Most truther hypotheses, most especially those of Judy Wood, and any others who propose that steel was turned to dust, are based on hypotheses that flagrantly violate the Law of Conservation of Energy. A serious scientist would consider them, in the absence of any credible supporting evidence whatsoever, only as subject matter for ridicule. At the moment, you're comfortably within that bracket.

Dave

That's actually the first interesting thing I've heard in this thread so far. Can you please elaborate, David?

How is the Law of Conservation of Energy violated with a DEW hypothesis?

 

[twinstead]

You guys (mostly) are supposed to be pro-debunkers.

Since my theory is standing strong, why not subject it to
the best? This is actually why rhetorical tactics like
clairvoyance and name calling are insufficient. I actually
want a debunking of my theory.

Does anybody know what I'm talking about, yet?
Enough to debunk it?

Dude. Your theory is NOT "standing strong". You're debating on an obscure internet forum. Any fool can say their theory is "standing strong" LOL

 

[twinstead]

That's actually the first interesting thing I've heard in this thread so far. Can you please elaborate, David?

How is the Law of Conservation of Energy violated with a DEW hypothesis?

What exactly is the "DEW hypothesis" again?

 

[WTC Dust]

Are you implying that no planes hit the WTC?

With that statement, I am only implying that the destructive force from an airplane crash isn't enough to do the damage that was seen. This includes the fire that would have resulted.

What was seen moving through the sky in lower Manhattan? I don't know. Did it look like a plane? Yes. Was it a real plane? I don't know.

I do know that even if it was a real plane, the destruction seen would not have resulted from it, which brings me back to my main research question: What destroyed the World Trade Center?

Since it wasn't planes that did it, I don't study the planes. Since it wasn't thermite bombs or any excessively hot process, I do not study the thermodynamics of the destruction. Since it was something I was completely unfamiliar with on 9/11, I knew that I'd have to learn something before I understood it completely, and I have more to learn.

I learned about Nikola Tesla's work. I read about John Hutchison's samples. He tweaks the magnetic field of his metal samples with a Tesla coil and then bombards them with high intensity electromagnetic radiation, and they split apart, jump apart, disintegrate and act all kinds of weird depending on the temperament of the machinery and the admittedly wacky operator, John Hutchison.

I read about the magnetometry readings in north Alaska that jittered and jumped in almost exactly the same directions at precisely the same moments in time when "events" occurred at Ground Zero. I read about Hurricane Erin, and began to conceive of it and of all hurricanes as gigantic Tesla coils, as they swirl around the salty water (with positive and negative charges), generating dramatic magnetic fields.

I'm starting to think, as wild as all this sounds, I see a thread here. I already knew that what happened on 9/11 was beyond my comprehension at the time. Why not Dr. Judy Wood? Her theory fits all the data, every last bit of it.

 

[WTC Dust]

Dude. Your theory is NOT "standing strong". You're debating on an obscure internet forum. Any fool can say their theory is "standing strong" LOL

I've subjected my theory to extensive scrutiny on many forums.

scholarsfor911truth.org (full member, this group disintegrated due to S.Jones)
killtown.org (got booted from this group for questioning TV Video Fakery)
pumpitout.org (got booted for talking about DEW)
WeAreChange (ditto)
Worldfor911Truth (ditto)
Canadafor911Truth (ditto)

Nobody touched the theory. They all just name-called and played rhetorical devices.

Now that my game has reached a higher level, and with the upcoming publication of some of my results soon, I thought I'd introduce myself to the best debunkers I ever heard of. Even snopes is boring and shallow and not current. So here I am, boys. How you feeling? I'm good.

 

[beachnut]

I've subjected my theory to extensive scrutiny on many forums.

scholarsfor911truth.org (full member, this group disintegrated due to S.Jones)
killtown.org (got booted from this group for questioning TV Video Fakery)
pumpitout.org (got booted for talking about DEW)
WeAreChange (ditto)
Worldfor911Truth (ditto)
Canadafor911Truth (ditto)

Nobody touched the theory. They all just name-called and played rhetorical devices.

Now that my game has reached a higher level, and with the upcoming publication of some of my results soon, I thought I'd introduce myself to the best debunkers I ever heard of. Even snopes is boring and shallow and not current. So here I am, boys. How you feeling? I'm good.

You have no theory, you have moronic nonsense. You can't define anything. You can't specify what steel dust is made of, or how it turned to dust. Got the equations for kinetic energy?

 

[dtugg]

[Insane gibberish redacted]

Why not Dr. Judy Wood? Her theory fits all the data, every last bit of it.

What theory? You, her, nor anybody else has been able to discribe it.

No "An unpecified type of DEW using an uspecified amount of energy from an unspecified source fired from an unspecified locacation dustified the WTC in an unspecified manner" is not a theory.

 

[dtugg]

By the way Tracy, is that offer from that blog I posted ealier still valid? I might have some friends in NYC that are desperate enough...

 

[alienentity]

You guys (mostly) are supposed to be pro-debunkers.

...I actually
want a debunking of my theory.

Does anybody know what I'm talking about, yet?
Enough to debunk it?

No, I don't know what you're talking about. But I asked you several specific questions, which you have so far not responded to.

Care to address the questions?

And as I asked earlier (what I believe is a perfectly reasonable question) 'What is the composition of your dust samples? What labs have you sent them to and when are you intending to publish your research for peer review?'

Can you please have the courtesy of replying to these direct questions? If not, your position is harder to defend IMO. You haven't presented a theory yet to address.

See 'Scientific Theory' if you doubt my criticism.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What was the mechanism for turning the steel into dust?

I've covered this before. It was a Slaver disintegrator, that suppresses the charge on the electron and allows matter to dissociate into monatomic dust. Doesn't anyone round here read Larry Niven? His work's a lot more realistic than Judy Wood's, and much better written.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

That's actually the first interesting thing I've heard in this thread so far. Can you please elaborate, David?

How is the Law of Conservation of Energy violated with a DEW hypothesis?

Surface energy. An energy input is required to divide steel into dust, and no such energy source has been identified. JREF member R.Mackey summarised the issues a while back; I'll look for the post if I can be bothered. Alternatively, you could apply your own research skills to the forum search function.

Please feel free to estimate the energy yield required of your hypothetical DEW to create the amount of dust you're pretending was created, though. It should be quite entertaining.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Since my theory is standing strong, why not subject it to the best?

Then why don't you? You haven't done anything more than outline some fictitious preconditions to a theory, and you're refusing to tell us what the theory is until we pretend your fantasy world is real. That's a good way of dodging the issue and pretending that the mean debunkers wouldn't even let you post your theory; we've all seen it here, many times. So, tell us what your theory actually is, and when we've finished laughing we'll explain (though, no doubt, you won't listen) why it's stupid.

Dave

 

[triforcharity]

Care to explain all this steel??

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Wtc-photo.jpg

Yeah, how about all the steel that Phillips & Jordan's accounted for?

Bumpity Bump for WTC Dust, since you conveniently "missed" this post....

 

[BigAl]

You guys (mostly) are supposed to be pro-debunkers.

Since my theory is standing strong, why not subject it to
the best? This is actually why rhetorical tactics like
clairvoyance and name calling are insufficient. I actually
want a debunking of my theory.

Does anybody know what I'm talking about, yet?
Enough to debunk it?

What theory? Did I miss it?

Beside being wrong, repeatedly asserting that WTC was turned to dust is hardly a theory by any definition used by the fact-based world.

This definition is as good as any. If you have an alternative definition of theory, what is it?

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science,

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[8]

The primary advantage enjoyed by this definition is that it firmly marks things termed theories as being well supported by evidence. This would be a disadvantage in interpreting real discourse between scientists who often use the word theory to describe untested but intricate hypotheses in addition to repeatedly confirmed models. However, in an educational or mass media setting it is almost certain that everything of the form X theory is an extremely well supported and well tested theory. This causes the theory/non-theory distinction to much more closely follow the distinctions useful for consumers of science (e.g. should I believe something or not?)

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The dust samples are the strangest material you've ever seen, if you've seen it. Very, very crumbly. The interior structure is that of a foam that has somewhat solidified. And there's more than one distinct kind of dust.

That sounds an awful like the spray on fire resistant material. Have you got any information as to its composition?

(*Tap tap tap*) Hey, is this thing on?...

 

[Mikemcc]

Drywall for one.

If we do a little math, we can estimate how much drywall was in the WTC towers.

The towers were 208'X208'X12'. Agreed? Good.

Now, a commercial drywall piece is 4'X12'.

So, using those dimensions, we can find out aproximately how much drywall was JUST on the outer perimeter walls.

So, each perimeter wall contained 52 pieces. 4/208=52.

Now, 4 walls, that is 208 pieces PER floor. Multiply that by 110 floors, and we get 22,880 pieces JUST in the outer walls. Now, this doesn't account for the returns in the windows, but it also doesn't account for the window gaps themselves, so we will call it even.

So, 22,880 PER tower, just for the perimeter walls. Now, two towers, and we have 45,760 pieces for both towers.

Now, crush those with hundreds of tons of weight, and what do you think it is going to do?

Create a ****LOAD of DUST.

Good going, I like that one! I'll have to remember that when this subject gets dragged up 'yet again'! I like when we can put figures to the effects that should show the nutcases that they are on a hiding to nothing.

 

[triforcharity]

Good going, I like that one! I'll have to remember that when this subject gets dragged up 'yet again'! I like when we can put figures to the effects that should show the nutcases that they are on a hiding to nothing.

As soon as I am motivated, I will do the core area. I just need the overall demensions......hint hint......

 

[Justin39640]

I've subjected my theory to extensive scrutiny on many forums.

scholarsfor911truth.org (full member, this group disintegrated due to S.Jones)
killtown.org (got booted from this group for questioning TV Video Fakery)
pumpitout.org (got booted for talking about DEW)
WeAreChange (ditto)
Worldfor911Truth (ditto)
Canadafor911Truth (ditto)

Nobody touched the theory. They all just name-called and played rhetorical devices.

Now that my game has reached a higher level, and with the upcoming publication of some of my results soon, I thought I'd introduce myself to the best debunkers I ever heard of. Even snopes is boring and shallow and not current. So here I am, boys. How you feeling? I'm good.

You won't get banned here at JREF for having retarded ideas but you will get mocked and shown to be an incompetent researcher (and quite possibly bat **** crazy ta boot).