• 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:
I'm presenting my data for debunking.
Click to expand...

You've presented no data thus far. A stream of empty arguments from incredulity, yes.:(

WTC Dust said:
I'm not afraid of being wrong. In fact, I delight in discovering that I've made an error. If you've found a factual error that I've made, you'd be doing me a favor in pointing it out
Click to expand...

Do you actually believe what you write? You've handwaved away or evaded every correction of your errors so far.

Want us to make a complete list of the astounding factual errors you've racked up? I don't have the time or interest, but I'll remind you of a couple of whoppers:

1) Your claim - the debris pile wasn't high enough. Proven wrong with extensive photographs and details of area, density and calculations of basement depth.

2) Your claim that 'almost all' the WTC was 'dustified'. Proven wrong with documentation of at least 1,462,000 tons of debris recovered, including 200,000 tons of steel.

To paraphrase you (in order to represent your attitude more accurately than you have done) 'I'm afraid of being wrong. In fact, I delight in denying that I've made an error. If you've found a factual error that I've made, you'd be doing me a favor in pointing it out so I can ignore it or evade it'

There. That's much better :)
 
WTC Dust said:
So what was the horizontal force that threw the building debris sideways?

Wind?
Click to expand...
:whistling

full.png


ps can't remember who created this graphic - Horatius? Dave Rogers? Anyway, thx for it.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Oh I get it now! You observe helium, that means you are a NO-HELIUMER! So it must be dust.

How clever! :cool:
Click to expand...


You missunderstand. Since the dust was really Helium it is proven beyond any doubt that the towers collapses where not gravity driven. You ain't gonna tell me that Helium crushes things down, do you? See? Game, set, match.
 
NutCracker said:
Now, you basiccaly bring a big rod of a suitable material into space (is ISS a coincendence.. I think not), pump it with HAARP, and you can dustify pretty much everything you want, everywhere. Instant steel to helium conversion. Doesn't leave a trace. Clean, simple, proven. Perfect.
Click to expand...

...and use it to kill innocent civilians on your own soil instead of against your enemies! Brilliant! :eye-poppi
 
dtugg said:
You call posting a picture of some dust "presenting data"? I don't think so. If you actually had conducted some analysis of the dust and determined what was in it sure. Why haven't you done that again?
Click to expand...

Clairvoyance, or perhaps a logic deficit? Because I haven't presented the results, you say that the experiments haven't been done.

It doesn't follow. I'm here to present my data. You want to talk about what I've already presented? Or are you going to keep on with the clairvoyance deal where you know things that you can't possibly know?
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Yeah, true. WTC Dust ought to talk with the truthers who thought the event was suspicious because the columns littering Ground Zero just happened to be in "convenient" 30 foot lengths, perfect for being trucked off.

But, truthers contradicting each other. You'd think that'd be a clue as to the unsupportability of their fallacies, but nooooooo...

Anyway, there's nothing to refute with the main. Simple readings of the testimonies about the recycling process is sufficient to put "dust" claims to rest. And as I pointed out above, WTC Dust hasn't even got basic facts correct about the event. There's nothing to debate when most of the discussion is correcting basic errors of fact WTC Dust is committing.
Click to expand...


Most truthers are wrong. It's just a fact. That I disagree with most truthers shouldn't bother you.
 
WTC Dust said:
I'm here to present my data.
Click to expand...

So present your data. "The dust in my possession is composed of ... "

Your continuing refusal to do so indicates that the experiment has not been done, despite your repeated assertion that it has. The way to prove us wrong would be to *drumroll* present the data. You're not going to be able to bluff your way out of it.

Your numbers should have presented before your assertion that the dust is "strange."
 
WTC Dust said:
Clairvoyance, or perhaps a logic deficit? Because I haven't presented the results, you say that the experiments haven't been done.

It doesn't follow. I'm here to present my data. You want to talk about what I've already presented? Or are you going to keep on with the clairvoyance deal where you know things that you can't possibly know?
Click to expand...

Do you have mass spectrometer readings?
 
dtugg said:
I am completely unsurprised that you refused to answer that question. It does after all destroy your argument.

And the term fireproofing is pretty self explanatory, if you are actually so dumb as to not be able to figure out why they use it.
Click to expand...

Then why did you ask the question, if the answer was so obvious.

My point is still the same: I can't account for the actions of anyone other than myself. People do dumb and illogical stuff all the time.
 
WTC Dust said:
Then why did you ask the question, if the answer was so obvious.
Click to expand...
Because he wanted to know your answer. Which you still haven't given.

My point is still the same: I can't account for the actions of anyone other than myself. People do dumb and illogical stuff all the time.
Click to expand...

Fireproofing is an added cost. If it's "dumb and illogical," they wouldn't waste their money. They don't put it on because they like the steel to look colorful.
 
R.Mackey said:
This was written to me, when I suggested there was no known technology that could spontaneously turn the WTC Towers' steel structure into dust. :boggled:

Dear WTC Dust, I have a book for you to read. "The Demon Haunted World," by Carl Sagan. Your world is inhabited with particularly severe demons. Specifically, read the chapter called The Dragon in My Garage. I can imagine all kinds of ludicrous, nonphysical things, but unlike you, I know the difference between imagination and reality.

If we wasted all our time looking for enemies that only existed in our imagination, we would accomplish nothing. Medical science has a term for this type of behavior -- it's called "paranoia."
Click to expand...

"Known" by you, you mean.

On 9/11, I knew that something other than planes destroyed the WTC. I also knew that nothing I was aware of at that moment could have done it in the way it happened. Therefore, on the day of 9/11/2001, I already knew I'd have to learn something BEFORE I could understand what happened to the WTC.

Anyone who says that this weapon doesn't exist better have some good logic behind it, better than, "I don't know about it, therefore, it doesn't exist."
 
WTC Dust said:
I agree that scientific theories can be tested. Let's take the theory that a jet fuel office fire can destroy a steel building.

Here's a simple model: Take a steel cage, a plain and simple steel cage. The size doesn't matter, but let's say it's one foot cubed. Put this steel cage in a large bucket, one completely filled with kerosene. Light the kerosene and step away.

What is your expected result? Will the steel break apart into a zillion pieces?

My prediction: Not much will happen to the steel cage.
My reasoning: Such things already exist. They're called "propane grills".

No matter how much propane you have, your grill doesn't break apart like the steel of the WTC did. You might say, "But the steel broke because of gravity." But this would ignore the initiation event. You say the steel got weak. From ... an office fire? An office fire that is at least an order of magnitude smaller than the fire that had already taken place in the WTC in the mid '70s? You have to prove this to me, because I think it's a ridiculous theory.
Click to expand...

The grill it treated with ceramics usually, that prevent it from melting.

Secondly, your experiment with the kerosene is flawed, as it doesn't have all the other objects available to give it additional heat. Ie: Chairs, tables, paper, etc. etc. etc.

I can give you the links of quite a few steel framed structures that collapsed from fire alone.

Would you like them?

Here you go.

http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153

Here is the USF AAR from the Sight and Sound Theature.
http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

Here is a near paper on the Perfomance of lightweight steel trusses in fires.
http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Downloads/SC_Baltimore.pdf

How about the Kader Toy Factory
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/kade-m16.shtml

How about the fire at the Meridian Plaza?
http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_lessons.html

The concrete structure did NOT collapse, but yet, the steel portion did.

How about that? 3 different fires, 3 collapses of steel framed structures....

ETA: Did you just compare the 1975 fire to the 2001 attack? Holy crap.

Not over 5 floors instantly.

No impact damage

Did not cover the entire floor area.

Holy **** that was stupid....
 
Last edited:
dtugg said:
You call posting a picture of some dust "presenting data"? I don't think so. If you actually had conducted some analysis of the dust and determined what was in it sure. Why haven't you done that again?
Click to expand...

WHERE THE DUST WAS FOUND is the very first part of my presentation. I've showed you a picture of the dust in situ (aka "where it was found).

Do you have anything to say about it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom