WTC dust

[tsig]

Name-calling is the least effective form of debunking.

If someone came to you with metallic metal samples, and claimed that they were from the remains of the WTC, would you call them a liar?

I have the samples.

I'd ask for the chain of custody. If they can't show that then they're liars.

 

[Sabretooth]

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

I'm whatever my handler tells me I am

 

[tsig]

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 drawer!

ftfy

 

[phiwum]

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.

I hope this is a joke and I'm just too thick to realize it....

Claims that either side consists of paid shills are just silly. Now, maybe Sabretooth is having us on by parodying the usual Truther claim. If not, what a silly post. If so, what a silly post I'm making.

 

[phiwum]

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!

Hey, I agree with this, too.

The gov't is filled with Satan-worshipping, steel-dustifying rapscallions. And they woulda gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for the WTCDust mystery crew and that meddling dog of theirs.

Seriously, I like the steel-turning-into-dust theory. It's broad, imaginative and big. But I still have to give the competition for wackiest theory to the Let's Roll forum, since it involves purposely building hollow towers with the intention of bringing them down and faking the deaths of thousands some decades later. Mysterious energy weapons are good, but it takes more balls to go through the rolls of the dead and find celebrity lookalikes in order to prove that these victims never actually existed.

To be sure, the "Let's Roll" theories are much, much more offensive to the victims and their survivors.

 

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by sabretooth47 View Post
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.

I hope this is a joke and I'm just too thick to realize it....

Claims that either side consists of paid shills are just silly. Now, maybe Sabretooth is having us on by parodying the usual Truther claim. If not, what a silly post. If so, what a silly post I'm making.

We are fairly certain (my own level of confidence is in the 80-90% range) that jammonius is in fact (in the real world) Judy Wood's lawyer. It is therefore quite possible that jammy is indeed getting paid to push her case. He might do it for free, out of friendship, solidarity or infatuation, but would be biased then still.

 

[Sabretooth]

I hope this is a joke and I'm just too thick to realize it....

Claims that either side consists of paid shills are just silly. Now, maybe Sabretooth is having us on by parodying the usual Truther claim. If not, what a silly post. If so, what a silly post I'm making.

It's part joke, part not.

It's been mentioned that Jammy (who may be real world lawyer Jerry Leaphart) is actually a lawyer for (or, at least, in cahoots with) Judy. So...there may be some level of truth in that Jammy pushes Judy's wares because he has to.

Provable? Probably not...not without knowing full well who Jammy really is.

EDIT: I see Oystein beat me to the punch.

 

[Oystein]

Hey, I agree with this, too.

The gov't is filled with Satan-worshipping, steel-dustifying rapscallions. And they woulda gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for the WTCDust mystery crew and that meddling dog of theirs.

Seriously, I like the steel-turning-into-dust theory. It's broad, imaginative and big. But I still have to give the competition for wackiest theory to the Let's Roll forum, since it involves purposely building hollow towers with the intention of bringing them down and faking the deaths of thousands some decades later. Mysterious energy weapons are good, but it takes more balls to go through the rolls of the dead and find celebrity lookalikes in order to prove that these victims never actually existed.

To be sure, the "Let's Roll" theories are much, much more offensive to the victims and their survivors.

Are the Let's Rollers No-Planbers, too? No-planers, like jammonius, are very offensive to the victims in the 4 planes, and their families.

 

[Nonpareil]

I hope this is a joke and I'm just too thick to realize it....

Claims that either side consists of paid shills are just silly. Now, maybe Sabretooth is having us on by parodying the usual Truther claim. If not, what a silly post. If so, what a silly post I'm making.

Um, no, it's not a parody. He's right. It is actually very likely that jammonius is being paid to push Judy Woods' ideas.

It's been previously established in another thread that jammonius is Jerry Leaphart. He is Judy Woods' lawyer. He works for her. It's quite possible that he's being paid to spread her ideas.

 

[phiwum]

We are fairly certain (my own level of confidence is in the 80-90% range) that jammonius is in fact (in the real world) Judy Wood's lawyer. It is therefore quite possible that jammy is indeed getting paid to push her case. He might do it for free, out of friendship, solidarity or infatuation, but would be biased then still.

(also to Sabretooth and Pure Argent)

Okay, evidently I don't know the history of this poster. Perhaps the claim that he is paid to defend Wood's theory is less silly than it appeared.

 

[phiwum]

Are the Let's Rollers No-Planbers, too? No-planers, like jammonius, are very offensive to the victims in the 4 planes, and their families.

They are no-planers, no-fallers, no-victimers and no-interior-floors-in-most-of-the-towerers.

 

[alienentity]

Reading these exchanges, a first ime visitor might think that
- WTC Dust claims 100% of WTC got turned to dust, there is no piece left larger than a speck of tust
- Debunkers claim 0% of WTC got turned to dust

I think neither perception fairly represents the claims.

I think both parties can agree in no time that some part got turned to dust and some did not. The difference is just over the percentages.Say, 80%-90% vs. 10-20%. Another difference would then be over the composition of the dust. WTC Dust seems to think that steel got turned into dust "just like" the other materials.


So I would rather ask WTC Dust to first define the claim:

• How is "dust" defined? By a maximun grain size (say, 0.1mm), grain mass (say 0.000001g), or grain size distribibution? We need some numbers here
• What overall percentage of the towers got turned into dust that conforms to the above definition of dust? A range (such as "70-80%", or a lower bound (such as ">50%") are needed
• What percentage of the steel was turned into dust according to the above definition of dust? Again, numbers for the range or a lower bound are needed
• We need estimates for the total mass of the towers, and the total mass of steel in the towers. Numbers again, please.

A brief explanation of how WTC Dust arrived at these numbers would be much appreciated, of course.

Once the claim is thus defined, we could derive lower bounds of the total mass of dust (both general and steel) that were produced, and of the energy required to create these amounts of dust.
We can then further start making predictions about what must have been observed if these numbers are nearly correct, and possibly make statements about minimum specifications of the device that supposedly caused this.

These predictions, if testable, might help us to decide whether or not we agree with WTC Dust's claims of dustification.

Yes, Dusty has been linked to the studies of said dust, and managed a feeble handwave and then dodged the subject.

Judging from the responses of this person it is highly unlikely you're going to get a direct response and straightforward debate on the evidence - instead the tactic appears to be to engage in evasive, cryptic and rhetorical bluster ad infinitum.

 

[alienentity]

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.

Precisely. A ridiculous rhetorical game worthy perhaps of a small child, and to be regarded as such.

Yet another childish, arrogant and fact-free truther 'Einstein'.

ETA as this person also claims to be a bonafide research scientist, then this is another demonstration that intelligent, well-educated people can get sucked into guanophrenic beliefs. Stupid ideas are still stupid even when enunciated by a professor.

 

[djlunacee]

(also to Sabretooth and Pure Argent)

Okay, evidently I don't know the history of this poster. Perhaps the claim that he is paid to defend Wood's theory is less silly than it appeared.

You really don't want to know the history of this poster. He will try to convince you that planes, trains, and transit buses all sound the same, that the passengers aboard the planes never existed, refuses to acknowledge the investigations by FEMA, NYPD, FDNY, FBI, 9/11 Commission, and NIST, and all the other studies into the events of that day are all pat of a mass PSYOP and that we really didn't see what we thought we saw on teevee, yet he will use youtube videos as binding evidence that is unbreakable. He even goes so far as to bend the english language to try and make you think that when you say "we saw the plane" it does not include you, go figure.

 

[djlunacee]

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.

Who Cares?

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.

Only in an alternate reality. Among sane and rational people she is still a laughing stock. The punchline of a bad joke.

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.

You do realize the judges who threw Judy out of court still feel she has no merit or case, this means no substantiative proof for her case, well done.

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

You are absolutely correct, science fraud was committed. Shame on Judy, I guess when you refuse to define any aspect or answer any questions regarding said fantasy, oops, I mean theory.

 

[bill smith]

An advanced weapon has been developed that can destroy buildings.

What I see in the video is an amazing production of dust, at the very earliest moments of the destruction of the steel building.

I see pieces of the building trailing dust on their way down.

I see the central core steel beams of the building standing tall for a short while, but then being turned into dust.

What I see is that the machine doesn't operate perfectly. The operator noticed that the part of the steel core was standing, and zapped that little part, finishing it off.

I'm coming from the standpoint that a single person operated the weapon that destroyed the WTC. It could have been more than one person, but I don't see why this must be true. Very complex, advanced machinery can be controlled by a single person sitting at a computer terminal.

Remember when the top 30-odd floors of WTC2 began to tilt out how the entire building underneath just uniformly collapsed under it in a split second ? Just like somebody had pushed a demolition button ?

Could that still have been an orbital DEW that caused that to happen ?

 

[excaza]

REmember when the top 30-odd floors of WTC2 began to tilt how the entire building underneath just uniformly collapsed under it in a split second ? Just like somebody had pushed a demolition button ?

Remember when that actually happened? No? Me neither.

Could that still have been an orbital DEW that caused that to happen

Of course it could have been. Except such technology DOESN'T EXIST.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Stupid ideas are still stupid even when enunciated by a professor.

You underestimate us. Stupid ideas become even more stupid when enunciated by a professor.


(But I still don't know what that might have to do with WTC Dust.)

 

[Dave Rogers]

Remember when the top 30-odd floors of WTC2 began to tilt out how the entire building underneath just uniformly collapsed under it in a split second ? Just like somebody had pushed a demolition button ?

Remember how truthers keep claiming that WTC1 crushed up before it crushed down, thus proving that it was a CD, and that WTC2 crushed down before it crushed up, thus proving even more that it was a CD?

Dave

 

[leftysergeant]

Remember when the top 30-odd floors of WTC2 began to tilt out how the entire building underneath just uniformly collapsed under it in a split second ? Just like somebody had pushed a demolition button ?

Could that still have been an orbital DEW that caused that to happen ?

No.