WTC dust

[ElMondoHummus]

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.

Seconded. We've had two images, a note that there are two "major types", one being light colored and fibrous, the other being darker and metallic, and that's it. When Jones, Harrit, et. al. laid out their description, they did it in far shorter time with far fewer words and nowhere near the same number of digressions into irrelevant minituae. Let's stop posting entirely, folks, until she's ready to compose a complete work. I mean, think about it, people: If this were a presentation, she would've been about two hours in and still giving an introduction. There's no reason to post in this thread until substance is provided, so let's just quit. I'll start. I won't continue until we get:

1. Specific characterizations of the dust (the above is a start).
2. Attempted identification of the components dust.
3. Description of experiments or observational methods (spectroscopy, etc.) used to aid in the characterization of the dust.
4. Explanation of the significance of the dust, and the hypothesis being built from the noted characteristics of the dust.

As much as we criticize Jones and Harrit for their work, at least they provided the above. This person isn't providing anything but empty reading calories. So let's all stop posting here. Let her provide substance from here on out.

Thirded. Let's ignore the troll until she gets to the point.

 

[phunk]

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?

Wait wait... His ipad? That would mean this image of the dust 'in situ' was taken almost 9 years after 9/11?

Not necessarily. It just shows that he recently transfered them to his Ipad.

Ok, so he took the pictures, but waited 9 years before he gave you a copy?

 

[Oystein]

Wait wait... His ipad? That would mean this image of the dust 'in situ' was taken almost 9 years after 9/11?

This.

So I repeat:

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.

You are being set up by a performance artist.

 

[DGM]

This.

So I repeat:

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.

You are being set up by a performance artist.

Why is WTC Dust different the Jammy? You still respond to him?


I don't think anyone is being "set-up". We're just giving him/her the shovel to dig his/her own hole (like Jammy).

 

[Oystein]

...you could just comment directly about what you see in my dust pics so I can move on.

No. You have studied it for 9 years. Present your results now.

I can't tell you everything at once.

Yes you can. Do it now. Everything else is unacceptable.



Everybody: Please demand that Dusty present ALL the information she has about that dirt heap. Do not discuss anything else. Make sure that no information about that dust will ever be discussed by anyone except for the complete data and analysis that Dusty will provide in her next post.

 

[Oystein]

Why is WTC Dust different the Jammy? You still respond to him?


I don't think anyone is being "set-up". We're just giving him/her the shovel to dig his/her own hole (like Jammy).

jammy at least gives us data to debunk, and is somewhat organized in his presentation.

 

[DGM]

jammy at least gives us data to debunk, and is somewhat organized in his presentation.

Somehow I get the impression we are seeing the extent of his/her data. I suspect we'll see him/her pass a magnet over the pile and claim it's an "analysis".

 

[Oystein]

Somehow I get the impression we are seeing the extent of his/her data. I suspect we'll see him/her pass a magnet over the pile and claim it's an "analysis".

Not even that.
But Dusty can prove us wrong by presenting her full study of that dirt heap in her next post.

 

[tsig]

I've showed you two data slides. Images that do not exist on the interwebs. Until this thread.

You mean that for the first time in human history these pictures are on the interwebs? How can this be?

 

[alienentity]

Agreed. Have Dusty bring an analysis forward. Nothing has yet been offered after hundreds of posts.

I won't hold my breath...

 

[WildCat]

ONLY if nothing resisted the fall of the object, like say STEEL BEAMS!!!

In TrutherLand^TM steel beams are infinitely strong.

 

[excaza]

I've studied the dust for 9 years. Can you ask me a question about that?

You've studied it for 9 years and you can't tell us specifically what it's made of?

 

[djlunacee]

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?

The only thing being dug here Dusty, is your grave yet again. Judy Wood is a crackpot, that does the same thing you do, make fantastic claims of dustification of steel, but refuse to answer questions, and define things that cut to the heart of your delusion. Claims of the building fell to fast, the steel should have held it up. You do realize the buildings were 95% air, once collapse initiated there wasn't much there to stop it. Dig it?

Trust me it won't take 1500 posts for everyone here to lose interest in your fraudulent claims. You have already proven you have no understanding of basic physics. The fact remains that you have no chain of custody on this fairy dust, so honestly, your fantasies are not relevant to me, or probably anyone else here. We know the steel was not turned to dust.

 

[excaza]

Of course, after the building bits were destroyed and turned into dust, then gravity caused these bits to fall to the ground.

On what planet does a giant cloud of dust fall at anything remotely close to g?

 

[djlunacee]

Very good question. The answer, I believe, is that an electrical weapon dissolved the steel while it was standing there. I cannot prove this definitively at this point, but what I believe I can prove is that steel was turned into dust.

You will never be able to prove it, electricity doesn't turn steel to dust, game over, you lose.

 

[excaza]

You will never be able to prove it, electricity doesn't turn steel to dust, game over, you lose.

Well, technically it can, but the energy required would be astronomical (literally). And it certainly wouldn't selectively dustify steel yet leave everything else intact.

 

[WTC Dust]

First, you must prove that said weapon existed, was operational and had the ability to do what you say it did. Second, you must prove that the steel actually turned to dust and third, you must connect the dust and weapon used. So far, you're zero for three on this topic. You've admitted that you cannot prove that a DEW weapon even exists. From where I'm standing at this point, you have proven that unicorns should also be a contender for your dust theory.

I don't see why I should have to prove that a particular weapon exists before I make comments on the mechanism of destruction.

From a forensic standpoint, sometimes you don't ever find the weapon. My goal is to see the exact weapon used with my own eyes, presented in a court of law. What else could be construed as "finding the weapon?"

Going back to forensics, sometimes the particular weapon used to commit a crime is destroyed and not recoverable. You can still prove what type of weapon was used based on the damage done. This is where the current argument is.

Most of the past few years, I've been trying to tell my story to the 9/11 truthers, almost all of them hooked on thermite. They do the same clairvoyance and name-calling stuff that I've witnessed here on the JREF forums, but I came to the conclusion that they believe a stupider story than you do, so I'd come here.

You tend to believe that an airplane crashed into the World Trade Center. I find this ridiculous.

They almost universally agree that an airplane crashed into the WTC, but ALSO that the buildings were preplanted with explosives. So that's ridiculous and nearly impossible. They are worse off.

The error in the official conspiracy theorist group is that airplanes could possibly do that to all those buildings. The error in the alternative conspiracy theorist group is that explosives was the mechanism. But plus they believe the hooey about airplane crashes. "Planes plus bombs" is such a stupid theory that I got tired of arguing against it.

At least you all have an excuse. You believe what the officials have said. Fine. Why you believe every darn word that was ever said about 9/11 by an "official" stumps me, but okay. At least you all tend to be patriotic, as I am. I find the idea that the US government participated in the 9/11 attacks to be revolting, and I am as angry at the "planes plus bombs" crowd as you are, maybe more because I know them so intimately.

 

[Oystein]

Before we speculate what can or cannot turn steel into dust, why don't we sit back and wait till Dusty has presented ALL of her analysis and results of all the studies she did on that heap of dirt from exhibit A?

Let's not chase moving goal posts. The heap of damp dirt has been sitting there untouched for over 1000 posts. Time to cut to the heart of it.

Dusty, bring it on!

 

[dtugg]

I So that's ridiculous and nearly impossible. They are worse off.

But hundreds of thousands of tons of steel turning to dust in seconds is perfectly reasonable. lol

 

[WTC Dust]

OK. The first looks like a burnt pile of unknown debris. The second is so out of focus I have no idea what it is (or could be).

Do you see anything that might be dust of two different types in the second image? Do you see some red smudges on the top part, on the darker stuff?