• 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.
Originally Posted by WTC Dust I cannot prove this definitively at this point, but what I believe I can prove is that steel was turned into dust.

for the love of God, please provide your proof.

:)
 
twinstead said:
I've had more fun watching my cat's claws grow.
Click to expand...

In the world of Judy Wood, jammonius and Dusty, which is 5 orders of magnitude removed from reality, finger nails grow at a rate of 17 inches per hour, or 7mm per minute. That could be fun to watch on a cat! Suppose you go to work, and when you return home, your cat is pushed into the corner of your study because her nails are now 14 ft long and extend to the other walls and ceiling! :D
 
Sabrina said:
If you ever tried to present this to scientists in the relevant fields in the manner you are progressing at the moment, you'd be laughed out of the room and blacklisted from every major scientific event just so people wouldn't have to suffer your glacially slow, poorly presented tripe.
Click to expand...


I took the liberty of rewriting Sabrina's summary of WTC Dust's research into an abstract for the scientific paper WTC Dust has yet to write:

Abstract. Most investigations into the collapses of the WTC towers on 11 September 2001 have attempted to use known principles of engineering and science to explain how the impact of a large airliner and consequent fires could have caused those collapses. In this paper, however, we investigate an alternative: That some weapon, of a type not previously deployed or demonstrated, employing unknown principles of physics that have not been published, may not have been discovered, and probably don't exist, dustified the WTC towers. Although we regard this thesis as self-evident, we deign to support this thesis with two extremely blurry photographs of unknown provenance that may or may not show dust of equally unknown provenance. Although we have no explanation for the large volume of steel recovered from the site, or for the fires, aircraft, and all other evidence on which other investigators have wasted their time, none is needed. History will prove us right, and reveal our greatness. Bwahahaha.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
I took the liberty of rewriting Sabrina's summary of WTC Dust's research into an abstract for the scientific paper WTC Dust has yet to write:

Abstract. Most investigations into the collapses of the WTC towers on 11 September 2001 have attempted to use known principles of engineering and science to explain how the impact of a large airliner and consequent fires could have caused those collapses. In this paper, however, we investigate an alternative: That some weapon, of a type not previously deployed or demonstrated, employing unknown principles of physics that have not been published, may not have been discovered, and probably don't exist, dustified the WTC towers. Although we regard this thesis as self-evident, we deign to support this thesis with two extremely blurry photographs of unknown provenance that may or may not show dust of equally unknown provenance. Although we have no explanation for the large volume of steel recovered from the site, or for the fires, aircraft, and all other evidence on which other investigators have wasted their time, none is needed. History will prove us right, and reveal our greatness. Bwahahaha.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Judy Wood to me......;)
 
WTC Dust said:
I don't know how I could possibly prove that they didn't collect what they said they collected.

All I can say is that the damage seen on 9/11 is inconsistent with an airplane crash and resulting fire.
Click to expand...
Maybe (as a "research scientist") you should start a step one. Why can't the buildings fail as NIST described? If you want people to listen you need to be specific, "Because I don't think so" won't work.

Just saying.
 
It just looks like dust kicked up by the wind...

It also looks photoshopped, but that's not really relevant.
 
DGM said:
Maybe (as a "research scientist") you should start a step one. Why can't the buildings fail as NIST described? If you want people to listen you need to be specific, "Because I don't think so" won't work.

Just saying.
Click to expand...

As the research scientist who is actually doing the work, I'm in a much better position to determine what should be done, and when. Step one for me begins with the moment the "conditions for collapse had been achieved", because that's where the NIST report left off.

If they had tried to do an analysis of the "collapse", they would have failed, because the WTC didn't collapse.
 
WTC Dust said:
http://howitwasdone911.blogspot.com/2010/10/first-anniversary-of-911.html

Here is a picture of Ground Zero exactly one year after the 9/11 attacks. The fumes were so heavy that they disrupted the memorial service that was going on. A full year later. An entire winter passed, and spring, and summer and the beginnings of fall the next year. Don't try and tell me that the fumes were generated by heat.
Click to expand...
Do you have the full context of that picture? IE location, what was going on, ect. Some people in that picture seem to be turning away (like to avoid the dust from a wind gust).
 
WTC Dust said:
As the research scientist who is actually doing the work, I'm in a much better position to determine what should be done, and when.
Click to expand...

Ok, but you're starting with your conclusions and trying to work backwards. That's not how it works. When you make statements like "the dust is strange," you should have analysis of the dust and be able to state, quantitatively, what it strange about it, instead of pulling random BS out of your nether region and claiming you've done science.
 
WTC Dust said:
As the research scientist who is actually doing the work, I'm in a much better position to determine what should be done, and when. Step one for me begins with the moment the "conditions for collapse had been achieved", because that's where the NIST report left off.

If they had tried to do an analysis of the "collapse", they would have failed, because the WTC didn't collapse.
Click to expand...
And you can show this to be true? (with science, not intuition)
 
WTC Dust:
Are you aware that a construction site is a very dusty place? I ask this because Dr Judy seems to be un-aware of this (considering she says they had to water the place down for years to douse the effects of DEW not control dust)


BTW: I'm a general contractor so I have some (30+ years) experience with this.
 
Last edited:
I wrote WTC Dust a question 4 pages ago, & still he/she ignores it. Maybe if I size it up & bold it I might get a response, or not.

How can steel turn into "dust", when it doesn't turn into a liquid first, then evaporate & then turn to dust?
 
Here is a picture of Ground Zero exactly one year after the 9/11 attacks. The fumes were so heavy that they disrupted the memorial service that was going on. A full year later. An entire winter passed, and spring, and summer and the beginnings of fall the next year. Don't try and tell me that the fumes were generated by heat.
Click to expand...

One out of context picture on a cooky website?

How about this one from Life Magazine? No 'Fumes'
http://www.life.com/image/1378737

What do you think the 'fumes' are?

What is their composition and source?
 
Guys, Dusty's already done an end-run on you. Before being able to establish anything via her alleged dust samples - absolutely no evidence of scientific value was presented by the two grainy and vague pictures - she's moved on to more vague allegations of 'fumes'.

Don't fall for this. Dusty has yet to provide the data that she alleges to have:

1) Where is the detailed account of the grain size, composition and density of the dust?
2) Where is the detailed chemical analysis of the dust?


etc...

What a complete waste of time. Dusty, you got nothin' but a tired rehash of Judy Wood claims and a few personal anecdotes thrown in. Booooorrrrring. zzzzzzzzz
 
WTC Dust said:
As the research scientist who is actually doing the work, I'm in a much better position to determine what should be done, and when. Step one for me begins with the moment the "conditions for collapse had been achieved", because that's where the NIST report left off.

If they had tried to do an analysis of the "collapse", they would have failed, because the WTC didn't collapse.
Click to expand...

That'd be news to the survivors in the North Tower then, not to mention the thousands of investigators, first responders, and construction workers who, you know, ACTUALLY SPENT TIME THERE.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom