WTC dust

[Andy_Ross]

It was the Fumes!!!

 

[aggle-rithm]

I think we're at the point where WTC Dust will show his true colors.

Is he sincerely deluded, or just a common troll trying to get attention? Or is he something entirely unexpected?

 

[jammonius]

This thread confirms the TIPPING POINT has been reached.

Posters and Lurkers,

This is my second or third post in this thread. Earlier this year, I don't think a DEW/NO PLANE thread would have generated as many posts as this one has with virtually no input from yours truly. Let me hasten to add, I am not boasting, let alone claiming that DEW claims cannot thrive without my participation. That is not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that the DEW proof put forward by Dr. Wood has finally gained sufficient traction, recognition of validity and willing adherents to be put forward very effectively on a debunker thread without prior DEW adherents posting much.

That is good.

Post # 929, by Oystein, consists in a strenuous effort to claim that the visual proof of steel being turned to dust is something other than visual proof of steel being turned to dust.

Oystein has the right, of course, to his own speculation and his own claims as to what he thinks he sees in visual information. That is fine. Oystein can continue to see what Oystein claims Oystein sees for as long as Oystein can do so.

But, what Oystein will not do and cannot do, even if he were to make an effort to do so, is point to a governmental or other investigatory claim, posted at a governmental website -- and also found in court records as Oystein has pointed out -- that provides the kind of conclusion that Oystein has.

Dr. Wood has published her proof that steel was turned to dust. Dr. Wood is a materials engineering scientist having the same background, albeit better credentials and more experience, than ARA's lead investigator for the fraudulent NIST project. NIST knew that the answers to what destroyed the WTC complex fell within the purview of materials engineering science, hence ARA's role; but, NIST did not investigate the actual destruction phase, thus science fraud was committed.

The void was filled by Dr. Wood who validly determined that steel turned to dust, cars, blocks away exploded, among other phenomena she identified, illustrated and explained, thus validly confirming DEW destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11.

That explanation is the only comprehensive one that has been done and published where all can see it.

The foregoing sentence might be argued with, or rather, quibbled with, but it will not likely be contradicted in any meaningful way.

all the best

 

[aggle-rithm]

Maybe aliens dustified the WTC using technology thousands of years more advanced than ours. Debunk that!

Luckily, we were able to inject a virus into their system that was originally designed to exploit a flaw in Microsoft IE v. 6. They didn't see that coming!

 

[aggle-rithm]

I think we're at the point where WTC Dust will show his true colors.

I was wrong! We're actually at the point where he bails out completely and gets a truther friend to distract us for him.

Oldest trick in the book!

 

[Sabretooth]

Nope. Vaporization is the process of a liquid becoming a gas.

Dust is not gas. Dust is very fine particulate matter, but it's much larger than the molecules of a gas.

To talk about vaporization is to talk about excess heat, when people standing right next to the World Trade Centers actually survived the collapse without burns.

No process that required excess heat could have destroyed the WTC. The survivors will tell you that they are, in fact, alive.

So, are you ever going to tell us how the steel was "dustified"? Or are you just going to do this stupid dance forever?

The DEW (or equivalent) theory is retarded because nobody can prove that such technology exists. No machine exists that can turn steel into dust...period.

You may as well claim that the alien ships from "War of the Worlds" were the culprits.

 

[phiwum]

Post # 929, by Oystein, consists in a strenuous effort to claim that the visual proof of steel being turned to dust is something other than visual proof of steel being turned to dust.

Oystein has the right, of course, to his own speculation and his own claims as to what he thinks he sees in visual information. That is fine. Oystein can continue to see what Oystein claims Oystein sees for as long as Oystein can do so.

But, what Oystein will not do and cannot do, even if he were to make an effort to do so, is point to a governmental or other investigatory claim, posted at a governmental website -- and also found in court records as Oystein has pointed out -- that provides the kind of conclusion that Oystein has.

Yes, quite right. It is interesting indeed, telling even, that no government or peer-reviewed report disputes the claim that the center core of the towers was turned into dust! Not one!

Now, ask yourself: why wouldn't the government investigate the possibility that the steel core turned into dust? Why not?

I'll tell you why not: 'Cause they did it!

 

[Sabretooth]

I'll wait until you agree THAT the WTC got turned into dust. I don't want to waste my time arguing HOW something happened until you agree that it did happen. [...]

You will never tell anyone the "how". Your whole theory is one big dodge. You'll always find an excuse as to why you won't (can't) tell anyone.

Why not just open up a utoob account or start a blog and spill your crap in there?

Better yet, why not get your "research" validated and get a paper published. The Pulitzer would be all yours!!

 

[Sabretooth]

You're supposed to be a research scientist. If you want me to agree with your conclusions, then show me how your research has led you to these conclusions.

If you were a real research scientist, you would have started with this.

Right. Instead he came blasting in here yelling, "I know something you don't know and I'm not telling you what it is until you agree with me!"

I'm starting to wonder if there are any truthers that have developed a maturity level greater than a 10 years old.

 

[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?

Boy, I really wish topics of substance can be discussed here in this thread. Such as the particulars of certain findings. Pray, tell, can this dust please be further described? Has any work been done to determine the composition of said material?

 

[Sabretooth]

Posters and Lurkers,

This is my second or third post in this thread. Earlier this year, I don't think a DEW/NO PLANE thread would have generated as many posts as this one has with virtually no input from yours truly. Let me hasten to add, I am not boasting, let alone claiming that DEW claims cannot thrive without my participation. That is not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that the DEW proof put forward by Dr. Wood has finally gained sufficient traction, recognition of validity and willing adherents to be put forward very effectively on a debunker thread without prior DEW adherents posting much.

That is good.

Post # 929, by Oystein, consists in a strenuous effort to claim that the visual proof of steel being turned to dust is something other than visual proof of steel being turned to dust.

Oystein has the right, of course, to his own speculation and his own claims as to what he thinks he sees in visual information. That is fine. Oystein can continue to see what Oystein claims Oystein sees for as long as Oystein can do so.

But, what Oystein will not do and cannot do, even if he were to make an effort to do so, is point to a governmental or other investigatory claim, posted at a governmental website -- and also found in court records as Oystein has pointed out -- that provides the kind of conclusion that Oystein has.

Dr. Wood has published her proof that steel was turned to dust. Dr. Wood is a materials engineering scientist having the same background, albeit better credentials and more experience, than ARA's lead investigator for the fraudulent NIST project. NIST knew that the answers to what destroyed the WTC complex fell within the purview of materials engineering science, hence ARA's role; but, NIST did not investigate the actual destruction phase, thus science fraud was committed.

The void was filled by Dr. Wood who validly determined that steel turned to dust, cars, blocks away exploded, among other phenomena she identified, illustrated and explained, thus validly confirming DEW destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11.

That explanation is the only comprehensive one that has been done and published where all can see it.

The foregoing sentence might be argued with, or rather, quibbled with, but it will not likely be contradicted in any meaningful way.

all the best

Posters and Lurkers...

Judy Wood is a complete moron. It's quite possible that Jammy here is getting paid to push her BS where ever possible. The bias is overwhelming.

 

[Oystein]

Posters and Lurkers,

This is my second or third post in this thread. Earlier this year, I don't think a DEW/NO PLANE thread would have generated as many posts as this one has with virtually no input from yours truly. Let me hasten to add, I am not boasting, let alone claiming that DEW claims cannot thrive without my participation. That is not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that the DEW proof put forward by Dr. Wood has finally gained sufficient traction, recognition of validity and willing adherents to be put forward very effectively on a debunker thread without prior DEW adherents posting much.

That is good.

WTC Dust has not put forward a defined claim of DEW anything.
Mrs. Wood has not put forward any such proof. She, too, has not even defined her claims of DEW. It is better described as a fiction about XYZ.

Post # 929, by Oystein, consists in a strenuous effort to claim that the visual proof of steel being turned to dust is something other than visual proof of steel being turned to dust.

Oystein has simply shown that in the images that supposedly show dustification, all the visible parts of a core structure can be easily seen until they fall out of view. Oystein has further claimed that the dust suspended after that fall was way too little to consist of the mass of solid steel that was there before.

You have not refuted those claims. They stand unrefuted.

But, what Oystein will not do and cannot do, even if he were to make an effort to do so, is point to a governmental or other investigatory claim, posted at a governmental website -- and also found in court records as Oystein has pointed out -- that provides the kind of conclusion that Oystein has.

You mean court records that served to support a Qui Tam case, brought to court by a certain Jerry V. Leaphart on behalf of Mrs. Wood, that was DENIED by every court, including the Supreme Court?

Then you will admit that all government records to date that include the evidence-less allegations of Wood and Leaphart have been found inadmissable, invalid, and insignificant by all the relevant government branches, including the judicial and the technical.

In other words: As far as government records go, the Wood/Leaphart case id DEAD.

Dr. Wood has published her proof that steel was turned to dust.

No. She has published assumption riddled allegations.

Dr. Wood is a materials engineering scientist

having the same background, albeit better credentials and more experience, than ARA's lead investigator for the fraudulent NIST project.

Poisoning the well.

NIST knew that the answers to what destroyed the WTC complex fell within the purview of materials engineering science, hence ARA's role; but, NIST did not investigate the actual destruction phase, thus science fraud was committed.

You need to look up "science fraud", and until you do, insert that into the lexicon of words that jammonius does not understand.

The void was filled by Dr. Wood who validly determined that steel turned to dust,

Practically no steel was turned to dust, as becomes evident by the fact that hundreds of thousands of tons of solid steel were recovered, but only less than 2% of iron in the dust (mostly in the form of chemical iron compounds; additionally, it has been determined that less than 15% of the building material was turned to dust and other small particles, shrinking the proportion of iron to less than 0.3% of the buildings' materials. Most of the iron came from concrete, rust and paints.)

The only void there is on Mrs. Wood's assumption-riddled web page.

cars, blocks away exploded,

No. Burned.

among other phenomena she identified, illustrated and explained,

You have been unable to point to and quote any such "explanation". It has therefore been validly concluded that no such explanation exists on Mrs. Wood's web presence.

thus validly confirming DEW destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11.

That claim isn't even defined. Not the D, not the E and not the W. Nothing about a non-claim can be "validly confirmed", unless you are practising something like Zen Buddhism.

That explanation is the only comprehensive one that has been done and published where all can see it.

No. See above.

The foregoing sentence might be argued with, or rather, quibbled with, but it will not likely be contradicted in any meaningful way....

It is good to see you beginning to foster doubts about Mrs. Wood's non-explanations.

Maybe we have reached a tipping point after all.

All the best!

 

[Oystein]

Yes, quite right. It is interesting indeed, telling even, that no government or peer-reviewed report disputes the claim that the center core of the towers was turned into dust! Not one!

Now, ask yourself: why wouldn't the government investigate the possibility that the steel core turned into dust? Why not?

I'll tell you why not: 'Cause they did it!

Remember early in the day after 9/11: There was this face of Satan that people saw in the billowing dust cloud of one of the collapsing towers.

Did the government investigate the possibility that Satan showed His face in 9/11? Why not?

I'll tell you why not: 'Cause they worship Satan!

 

[Andy_Ross]

No machine exists that can turn steel into dust...period.

Not strictly true, Grinders do it very well, also the disk brakes on a car are good at turning steel disks into dust.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Maybe the building was a giant inflatable and there was no steel. When the aircraft 'popped' it down it came like a bouncy castle with the pump turned off.

 

[Sabretooth]

Not strictly true, Grinders do it very well, also the disk brakes on a car are good at turning steel disks into dust.

...instantly?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

24 pages ! WHY are you guys arguing with a no planer!!!?? Are you all insane?

QFT [/thread]

 

[GlennB]

Not strictly true, Grinders do it very well, ....

True. So the answer is nano-grinders. Ickle nano-grinder factories self replicating exponentially. At a critical mass they switch to nano-grinder production per se. This is actual science, except for the moment it's a gubmint secret. They're waiting for the right time to unleash this weaponry on The Axis of Evil (updated to N Korea, Iran and Venezuela. Maybe Latvia too if they keep turning out such hideous Eurovision Song Contest entries).

 

[Oystein]

True. So the answer is nano-grinders. Ickle nano-grinder factories self replicating exponentially. At a critical mass they switch to nano-grinder production per se. This is actual science, except for the moment it's a gubmint secret. They're waiting for the right time to unleash this weaponry on The Axis of Evil (updated to N Korea, Iran and Venezuela. Maybe Latvia too if they keep turning out such hideous Eurovision Song Contest entries).

Finland first, please. Even though you'd need a heavy metal nanogrinder for them, and I am not sure if that is not an oxymoron...

 

[Andy_Ross]

...instantly?

See! you moved the goalposts. are you a truther?