• 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:
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'm going to treat you strictly as a joke from this point on, because I'm hoping you're not insane, but just having us on.

This second photo is next to useless. It is out of focus, low res and doesn't show anything of value. Sorry.

The first photo was similarly useless - underexposed, low res and next to worthless.

I sincerely hope you attempt to publish, in your real name, your 'research', because I think you might actually discover how appallingly bad your work is.

One final note regarding your calculations on the supposed 'gravity' collapse of the towers - you're embarrassing yourself by writing stuff like 50s. Nobody who understands physics reasonably well is going to fall for your hoax.

Your research is a joke, nothing more.
 
WTC Dust said:
I could ask him. He's a mac guy. Does that help? It looked like he was pointing and shooting to me, but he also sent me the images after he downloaded them onto his Ipad. Does this make a difference?
Click to expand...

Wait wait... His ipad? That would mean this image of the dust 'in situ' was taken almost 9 years after 9/11?
 
WTC Dust said:
Please look at Data Slide Number 2.
Click to expand...

Yes, that did it. An out-of-focus picture of something you claim is dust from the collapse.

Now, I believe you. After all, if you were trying to pull one over on us, you would've tried harder. So, it must be legit.
 
beachnut said:
A gravity collapse model matches the collapse time of the WTC save the core which collapsed after most the WTC collapsed.

You failed to do the physics. Why? This would be simple for a reality based research scientist.
Click to expand...

Doing physics on a failed theory doesn't advance anything.
 
Dusty, you must have the worst photographer in the world. I have taken better photos with my cell phone while black out drunk.
 
phiwum said:
When you say you've studied it, what do you mean?

How, exactly, have you studied it?
Click to expand...

Starting Day 3, when I observed it emanating from the WTC site in lower Manhattan. Actually, my questions were raised on the day of 9/11, but I didn't get to the site for almost 3 days because I was off the island, and none of the bridges and tunnels were open until Thursday.
 
phunk said:
Yes, we all know you don't think it happened that way. I was referring to your explanation for how long a gravity driven collapse would have taken in this post just a couple hours ago. Is your short term memory really that bad? Maybe you need to ease up on the marijuana research.
Click to expand...

I don't really want to talk about gravity-induced destruction for a little bit. I'd like to talk about my dust images. We can revisit this discussion later on, if that's ok.
 
WTC Dust said:
No object can fall faster than gravity, unless there is an outside force acting upon the object.
Click to expand...

Dude, you've already been schooled by Clinger and Dave Rogers about this: Gravitational acceleration would have resulted in 9.22s for something at the top of the towers.

Actual video, combined with seismic recordings show the collapses took considerably longer than this. The NIST recorded at least that long for the interval between the first debris impacting the ground to the end of the collapse - which doesn't include the time it took that debris to fall from whatever height it started at.

Real physicists (that is, not you, and not Dr Wood) have actually done the math to determine the expected elapsed times, and the math corroborates the actual very nicely.

Judy Wood's calculations are incompetent and not applicable to this case. Neither are yours.

You're hopelessly out of your area (whatever it is..) of expertise, and you're apparently unable to perceive this.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
I haven't.

As much as you'd like for readers to think you've been misquoted, it would be dishonest of you to say I've misquoted you.

You really did write these things:
Click to expand...

OK. I'm saying the dust was what used to be the building. So the dust (aka the building) fell quicker than would be accounted for by a gravity-only collapse of whole floors.
 
WTC Dust said:
I don't really want to talk about gravity-induced destruction for a little bit. I'd like to talk about my dust images. We can revisit this discussion later on, if that's ok.
Click to expand...

If you don't want issues to be discussed, don't introduce them into the thread. So far you've thrown a number of bare assertions, and now some truly incompetent math, into the mix.

You chose to play that game, now we're playing it too. Tough luck for you:D
 
WTC Dust said:
I am amazed by all the clairvoyance. You're now claiming I think that gravity causes things to fall at a constant speed, when that's idiotic. Of course things speed up when they fall. Gravity causes things to fall with constant acceleration, not constant speed.
Click to expand...

And yet you're calculating the fall time by taking the time to fall through the first floor's height and multiplying it by the number of floors.

WTC Dust said:
What you are missing in this "gravity-only collapse" is that the lower floors wouldn't begin to fall until the upper floors crashed into them.
Click to expand...

And what you're assuming is that, in this impact, the upper block stopped dead, and the whole thing then began to accelerate from stationary again. This indicates that you have no understanding whatsoever of conservation of momentum in an inelastic collision, which is (or should be) high school physics, which you claim you got good marks in. Therefore, either a liar or an idiot.

WTC Dust said:
No object can fall faster than gravity, unless there is an outside force acting upon the object.
Click to expand...

Apart from the extremely poor phrasing, why are you bothering to say this, when nobody is claiming that anything fell at a greater rate of acceleration than that of gravity when there was no outside force acting on it?

Dave
 
WTC Dust said:
"Known" by you, I'm presuming, right? You think you already know all the laws of the universe, or do you think that you might not know something?

Because even physicists will tell you that physics is a field of active research. Even physicists don't know all the laws of the universe, which means there might be some out there that they don't already know.

I could tell you the process that I suspect is going on here, but again, that's not my work. It's the work of other scientists.
Click to expand...

Known by scientists on Earth.

not space aliens.

Not Middle Earth.

Not Hogwarts.
 
Last edited:
dtugg said:
Dusty, you must have the worst photographer in the world. I have taken better photos with my cell phone while black out drunk.
Click to expand...

I'm not giving you my very best. I'm giving you the images that show what I'm talking about.

Two different types of dust (at least).
 
WTC Dust said:
OK. I'm saying the dust was what used to be the building. So the dust (aka the building) fell quicker than would be accounted for by a gravity-only collapse of whole floors.
Click to expand...

Forget about your phony claims about the dust. Just show your data (which I wager doesn't exist) and let us examine it.

The craptastic pictures are not meaningful data. You need to provide high-quality photos of your dust samples, measurements of their density, your analytical process documentation. Mostly you need to show your mass spectrometry data on the samples you have.

Anything else is baloney.
 
Oystein said:
I suggest everybody stop replying to Dusty until she kicks that attitude and tells us all that she knows about that dirt heap. And then some.
Click to expand...

I can't tell you everything at once. I'm trying to tell you exactly what my thoughts are on the dust and why. If it's not fast enough for you, you could just comment directly about what you see in my dust pics so I can move on.
 
DGM said:
Wouldn't you want to document those sort of things for your research? It makes a great difference in how the sample appears. I'm guessing the samples actual make up is not going to have a great deal of influence on your research.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Why would you say that? I'm attempting to show that the composition and macroscopic structure of my samples proves that steel was turned into dust by an exotic mechanism.

I don't know everything about everything. Nobody does. I only can tell you what I do know, and what I'm trying to tell you is that the dust was at least two types. Doesn't data slide number 2 tell you that? It's a closeup, but it does show two different types of "stuff" that I'm saying is WTC dust.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom