• 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:
Calculations, smalculations. You don't believe your own eyes, so why would calculations do anything?
Click to expand...

I've already commented on this line, but I think it warrants further comment.

WTC Dust is presenting a classic example of a fallacy that I coined the term "Unevaluated inequality fallacy" to describe. She is claiming that the collapse times of the Twin Towers were greater than those that would be expected from a gravity-driven collapse. Mathematically, this can be expressed very simply as:

T1 > T2,

where T1 is the measured collapse time and T2 the predicted collapse time. In reality, we can't be certain of either T1 or T2, so we can assign ranges of T1' ± delta T1 and T2' ± delta T2 to both. From this we can therefore modify the claim to "The shortest possible calculated collapse time is greater than the longest possible measured collapse time", or:

T1' - delta T1 > T2' + delta T2

So the question to be addressed is, what are the values of T1', T2', delta T1 and delta T2?

I have offered values for these. The observed collapse times were in the range 12-16 seconds, and various calculations give times in the range 12-16 seconds. Therefore, we have T1'=T2'=14s, and delta T1 = delta T2 = 2s. Now, the problem for WTC Dust's claim is that, quite obviously:

T1' - delta T1 = 12 < 16 = T2' + delta T2

In fact, the centre values and the uncertainties are very well matched; the conclusion to be drawn is that the collapse time is exactly what we would expect, to within errors of measurement and calculation.


What is WTC Dust's response to this? It is to reject the calculations out of hand, without substituting any values of her own. WTC Dust is claiming certain knowledge that an inequality is true despite not knowing the values that are asserted to be unequal, and in effect claiming that some of these values are unknowable. It's a variant on the bare assertion fallacy; the variation is that the claimant actually refuses to back up the claim, by claiming that any attempt to back it up would be invalid. The pretence at support for the claim is therefore a further bare assertion which, if true, would invalidate the original claim.

So, WTC Dust's claim that the WTC Twin Towers fell faster than they should have fallen must be rejected out of hand.

Dave
 
Architect said:
It would appear, WTC, that you're doing a Heiwa and simply ignoring any post which shows your assumptions to be in error.
Click to expand...

Add in Christophera, Christoper7, jammonius .....

The list is long. This thread is getting long too ;)
 
Remain civil and on topic.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
You can't do more than provide demonstrably correct and validated material to the table. If the opposing poster wishes to deal with it, or ignore it and pick a few words in your post and argue about semantics instead, you know it's not going to be a very productive discussion/debate.
 
How do we know that is dust from the WTC and not just some random ashes from a furnace or the contents of a cleaner bag? What is it's provenance and chain of custody?
 
WTC Dust said:
The dust isn't peanut butter. It isn't even one type of dust. I keep telling you all that, but you're not picking up on it. I keep telling you that some of it is metallic, and I have much more to say and to show you, but until a certain mass of people appear to be paying attention, I'm not going to be able to proceed very fast.
Click to expand...

OK, let's see what you've really presented. You've presented a photograph of what looks like a fairly large quantity of particulate matter, in what appears to be an indoor location. You have asserted, without offering supporting evidence, that this matter originated from the WTC collapses, and you have further asserted, without offering supporting evidence, that this matter is a mixture of different substances, some of which are metallic. You've denied the validity of copious quantities of evidence demonstrating that large sections of steel formed the majority of the metallic debris from the WTC. You've asserted, without offering supporting evidence, that the WTC collapses were faster than expected, and refused to consider the possibility that contradictory evidence exists. And, finally, you've asserted that no disproof has been offered that an entirely undefined category of devices could have caused the WTC collapses.

Did I miss anything? Because, at the moment, the only conclusion I can draw from this is that you've got a big pile of dirty swarf in your garage, and that you have no interest in unbiased discussion of 9/11 based on relevant evidence.

Dave
 
Are we sure this isn't a put-on?

WTC Dust said:
Snap judgments? Not good. Slow, reasoned effort? Much better. You might have been convinced by the airplane crash story, but I wasn't. Not for a moment.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's bad to come to snap judgments as they're unreliable.

It's good that you immediately realized the crash story was bogus.
 
your work is hereby declared invalid


1) no chain of custody for the alleged dust image
2) no grid location stating the coordinates of the alleged dust sample image
3) no mass spectrometer data attached to the alleged dust image.
4) no control sample of "dust" taken pre 911

thread-fail-stamp.gif
 
WTC Dust said:
Truth be told, that when I was a young person, I wasn't as particular. I'd watch fiction, and I did watch Back To the Future, Family Ties and other crap TV shows.

I made the decision to eschew fiction around the time I entered college, and I still read fiction (rarely) and watch some fictional shows (even more rarely), but only if they are really big and important. I never saw a Star Trek movie, didn't see ET or The Titanic. But I did watch Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine, Farenheit 911, and Sicko. I am also willing to read the news and watch America's Funniest Home Videos because those people really are getting their nuts kicked and falling off trampolines, ya know.
Click to expand...

Well, if watching Michael Moore movies doesn't prove you're an intellectual powerhouse, I don't know what does.
 
Energy Beam capable of destroying the towers.

Too bad those two fuel laden airliners coincidently flew into the buildings, ruining the Energy Beam owner's chances for world domination.

If you had a beam of that power, and were using it for evil, why have the planes crash into the building? The threat of a terrorist having access to such a force, would be much greater than the threat of a terrorist hijacking a plane and crashing it into a building.

Does not compute.
 
space beamers are usually no-planers, so you need to add space-based volumetric 3-d light and sound projection to the list.
 
excaza said:
space beamers are usually no-planers, so you need to add space-based volumetric 3-d light and sound projection to the list.
Click to expand...


But why even project a fake plane? Let the world know you have this great power, and then use the power to manipulate your enemies.
 
No steel dust, period

WTC Dust said:
The WTC didn't collapse. It was turned almost entirely into dust.
Click to expand...

It did not turn to dust. If you're basing this fantasy on the collapse of the spire,
Just add www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESaIEVxLnK4 and it debunks itself but the video below is of sufficient quality to easily see the steel drop down while the dust hangs in the air.

If you read the good Dr's website (Wood), she's uses a video like the one above to prove that the steel in the spire was dustified. I don't want to attack Dr. Wood as I believe she isn't all there and it's possible, people are taking advantage of her.

Take a look at this video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqSLIPwZ430.

You can clearly see that the spire doesn't turn to dust, it collapses from the bottom so the vertical columns drops practically straight down and in doing so, the lighter dust hangs around for a few seconds. Take a good long look at the second video I posted, then, you tell me that you still think the steel, dustified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom