• 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 telling you that the reason why they did not is because the steel beams were turned into dust and lost their strength.
Click to expand...

How?

What is the actual process, consistent with known physical laws of the universe that could be used to do this?
 
WTC Dust said:
Data Slide Number 2

This is a very tiny crop of an image that shows another result I've been claiming.

The dust is not homogenous. There are two major types of dust.
One is lighter in color and more fibrous.
One is darker in color and metallic, with rusty spots.

Original image. No one has seen this other than my photographer.
Click to expand...

You might want to find a new photographer, that is way out of focus.
 
WTC Dust said:
I'm telling you that the reason why they did not is because the steel beams were turned into dust and lost their strength.
Click to expand...

When you say that the beams were "turned into dust" are you suggesting thatthe steel in the collumns was dissaciated?

At what level?

macroscopic?

Microscopic?

Molecular?

Atomic?

Sub ataomic?

Throw me a bone here, explain yourself.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
When you say that the beams were "turned into dust" are you suggesting thatthe steel in the collumns was dissaciated?

At what level?

macroscopic?

Microscopic?

Molecular?

Atomic?

Sub ataomic?

Throw me a bone here, explain yourself.
Click to expand...


He has no idea Alferd, he's just the messenger. He'll leave all the sciency details the powerhouse scientists of the truth movement.
 
A W Smith said:
So you don't even know that it is in fact WTC dust? You don't have to show us the "results". Your research fails to establish a chain of custody proving that it is in fact WTC dust to begin with. It could be subway sweepings containing sintered iron brake dust and wheel flange/rail dust for all we know. You take ignorant incredulity for the events of that day and use confirmation bias to suport a wild fantasy.

Dismissed
Click to expand...

You dismiss me too early. Just because I haven't provided the full proof to you is not evidence that I don't intend to. In fact, if you read what I'm saying carefully, you'll notice that I plan to show you my argument...at my own pace. I want you to carefully examine each part of my evidence.

As of now, I've only showed you two data slides. Everything else has been me talking about other people's work and how it relates to mine. Now, I've begun showing you my work.
 
WTC Dust said:
You dismiss me too early. Just because I haven't provided the full proof to you is not evidence that I don't intend to. In fact, if you read what I'm saying carefully, you'll notice that I plan to show you my argument...at my own pace. I want you to carefully examine each part of my evidence.
.
Click to expand...

in other words your trolling for attention. Answer the question I asked above.
 
WTC Dust said:
You dismiss me too early. Just because I haven't provided the full proof to you is not evidence that I don't intend to. In fact, if you read what I'm saying carefully, you'll notice that I plan to show you my argument...at my own pace. I want you to carefully examine each part of my evidence.

As of now, I've only showed you two data slides. Everything else has been me talking about other people's work and how it relates to mine. Now, I've begun showing you my work.
Click to expand...

1606 posts in, 2 bad pictures and no data so far. Is your pace set to 'glacial'?
 
djlunacee said:
Well wooptie freakin doo! You posted a picture of dust. Now what? For somone who is suppose to be a research scientist, you really are not to bright. Basically what I am saying is ****, or get off the pot, put up or shut up, catching the drift? You are not the first on to come through hre with incredible claims of dustification and not back them up, for one reason, you can't. We know it, and now, you know it.
Click to expand...

This is clairvoyance. You are claiming, on a JREF forum, to know what is inside the head of another person. Very wacky.

You weren't directing me when I did my research, so don't expect to be able to direct me during my presentation of my results. If it takes 1,500 posts for me to get to my data, whoopdeedoo. I got time. If you could now begin to focus on my work instead of asking distracting questions about what is already out there, we might begin to have an exciting scientific conversation instead of rehashing the arguments that are already out there.

My research bolsters that of Dr. Judy Wood. It's not the same as her research. In fact, it's entirely different. But that's actually a good thing, because the right answer to a question is right no matter which direction you look at it.

Science isn't accomplished by majority rule. It's done one lonely scientist at a time. For years, it was just Judy Wood. Now I have something to say, and I'm saying it here because I think y'all are supposed to be the best at debunking, and I want my stuff thoroughly debunked ahead of time so I don't fall on my face and make a fool of myself when I get to publication.

Can you dig it?
 
Architect said:
I could be wrong, WTCDust, but you appear not to have responded to this or the other similar posts.

Essentially, you're demonstrably incorrect when you assert that there was not a sufficient debris pile. The linked paper provides an outlien calculation which strongly suggests you have failed to assess this in any detail, likewise photographs posted by other provide clear evidence of substantial post-collapse debris.

Please clarify your position.
Click to expand...

The pile was not centered in either footprint of the Twin Towers, where I expected to see it. A pile of Jenka bricks spreads out, yes, but the center of the pile is smack dab in the middle, and I expected to see that, but did not.

Pieces of the remains were sticking up above the fence. I saw these pieces, but they weren't where WTC 1 and WTC 2 used to be.
 
WTC Dust said:
It takes more than 0.5 seconds to fall twelve feet. The lower floors do not begin to fall until the upper floors crash into them (under a collapse scenario). So the first floor-crash (which, remember did NOT happen, but we're talking hypothetical here) takes >0.5 seconds for the floor above to reach the next floor. And then the following floor takes >0.5 seconds to get smashed by the top two floors, etc. going all the way down. The floors can't fall faster than the rate of fall in a vacuum, so they can't take less time to travel the 12 feet between itself getting smashed by the upper floor and itself reaching the lower floor.

A gravity-driven collapse would have taken >0.5 times 100ish floors (because supposedly the top floors were falling intact), which equals >50 seconds.

Did the WTC take about a minute to collapse? No. It took about 10 seconds. Way off.
Click to expand...
Cool story, bro'.

WTC Dust said:
It's very near a gravity collapse time, which should cause you to pause and think how this happened....

The building fell at nearly free fall speed because the steel beams provided none or not much resistance to the fall.
Click to expand...
First you say the actual collapse was at least 5 times as fast as a gravity collapse, and then you say the actual collapse was "very near a gravity collapse time" but slower.

To succeed as a performance artist, you'll need to work at remaining in character.
 
Last edited:
Lxj said:
You're correct about being able to see what happens to the spire in the first vid better. The parts I like about the second vid is that in frames 12-32, you can clearly see (it seems the best one for this) the entire spire including a clear view of what's left of the core at the lower parts of viewable area. The frames starting at 41 and going to 59 give one of the best views of the remains of the core I've seen.

All someone has to do it watch both videos and it should be clear that the spire isn't 'dustified' (dustified, really?) The core obviously collapses near the bottom and when the tallest spire sinks, it leaves a dust cloud that is the shape of the spire but if you pay attention, you can see the steel inside, sinking with the collapsing core.

Finally, there were 'researchers' who believed that the core was reinforced concrete and no amount of data would change their mind. Yet, in the second video, it's obvious that the core is steel. The video of the stairways where the trapped firefighters were shows an obvious feature, you can see the staircase not because the cement broke away, no, because the doubled up gypsum board that had blocked some survivor's way down appears to be blown off. In the still photo I'm talking about, you can easily see I think, five stories worth of emergency staircase, exposed because the gypsum was missing.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

I've heard the official 9/11 conspiracy buffs say that the steel beams had dust on them, and that when they fell, the dust fell off the beams.

It looks different to me. It looks like those steel beams became dust.
 
WTC Dust said:
The pile was not centered in either footprint of the Twin Towers, where I expected to see it. A pile of Jenka bricks spreads out, yes, but the center of the pile is smack dab in the middle, and I expected to see that, but did not.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you actually had any knowledge about physics, or spent a little more of the nine years you spent staring at a pile of dust actually learning science, you wouldn't have expected that.
 
beachnut said:
You have the moronic delusion of a beam weapon doing the WTC collapse and you can't explain how, or how much energy was involved. You have a fantasy, a dirt dumb delusion. And you can't provide any facts or evidence to support your insane claim.

You have no methods, you have no data, you have lies. You have failed for 9 years.
Click to expand...

DEW is the result of Dr. Judy Wood. Ask her to defend it. I already told you many times I would like to see a debunking of her theory, if it's possible. I want to find out the real reason, and if her theory has a major flaw, I want it to be discovered. I haven't been able to, and I have never read anyone else who was able to.
 
WTC Dust said:
Data Slide Number 2

This is a very tiny crop of an image that shows another result I've been claiming.

The dust is not homogenous. There are two major types of dust.
One is lighter in color and more fibrous.
One is darker in color and metallic, with rusty spots.

Original image. No one has seen this other than my photographer.
Click to expand...

I've seen better bigfoot photos.
 
WTC Dust said:
DEW is the result of Dr. Judy Wood. Ask her to defend it. I already told you many times I would like to see a debunking of her theory, if it's possible. I want to find out the real reason, and if her theory has a major flaw, I want it to be discovered. I haven't been able to, and I have never read anyone else who was able to.
Click to expand...

Yes you have. You have been told many times in this very thread, in fact. Why do you keep lying like this? Do you think it makes your delusions look more credible?
 
phunk said:
And you didn't see the glaring mistakes in her analysis? A high school student could see how wrong it is. Are you sure you're a scientist?
Click to expand...

Why don't you explain one mistake she made? "DEW doesn't exist because I don't know about it" doesn't count as a mistake she made.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom