• 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.
fess said:
WTC Dust;
Although I doubt it will do any good, I will ask again... How much of this "dust" do you have?
Click to expand...

Why is the amount of dust I have important? What I see as important is that I have different types of dust.
 
And Dusty still has presented no evidence whatsoever in support of her insane ideas. I wonder why.
 
WTC Dust said:
The 9/11 one year anniversary memorial service included uniformed members of the police and fire departments that marched down into the pit at Ground Zero. At a certain point, the fumes came up so strongly that the ceremony was disrupted.
Click to expand...

Please link us to a statement showing the ceremony was disrupted or retract your baseless assertion.
 
I've decided that all of you asking for "all I've got and then some" are right.

ANNOUNCEMENT:

I will be giving a public seminar on my latest research into what destroyed the World Trade Center on December 1, 2010.

Edited by Locknar: 
Commercial advertisement edited, breach for Rule 6 (E4).


If you can't make it to NYC or if you don't want to pay for a ticket, I am planning to put the seminar live on USTREAM, where you will be able to login and ask questions and get answers in real time. Should be fun. Hope to see you there, and I will respond as soon as I get more details.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would be shocked if anybody who doesn't already know Dusty shows up for her "seminar" and stays for the whole thing.
 
WTC Dust said:
Data slide number 2 shows two very different types of WTC dust.
Click to expand...

"Data slide number 2" is such a horrible photo that nothing can be inferred from it (like I said I've taken better photos with my cell phone while black out drunk). And even assuming that you're right, two different types of dust is not proof of your insane fantasy.
 
excaza said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is somewhat of an interesting point. I did join this group in order to talk about the results that I have obtained, and I certainly already have my mind made up about certain aspects of 9/11.

However, this is 9 long years later. I've read and seen almost everything already that has been presented to me on this list in an attempt to debunk me. I didn't START OUT this process with my mind made up. I took plenty of time and examined all of the available evidence for years before I began to make up my mind about some of it.

Example: I studied TV Video Fakery for two years before I became convinced that it didn't happen. But I did become convinced it did not happen, and these days you will not hear me mention anything about faking videos or fake pictures.

Example: Steven Jones. I read his stuff as soon as it came out, and I've kept reading Steven Jones. I was convinced from the get-go that he was wrong, but I kept reading to see if his story got any better, and it didn't. Now he's saying that it might have been thermite plus "something else" that destroyed the towers. Weak. He's essentially admitting that thermite didn't do it, but his minions don't agree. Whatever.
 
You say the dust is 'strange,' yet after 9 years you completely lack the ability to quantitatively show why. You do not have results. You have assertions. Assertions are completely meaningless.
 
dtugg said:
"Data slide number 2" is such a horrible photo that nothing can be inferred from it (like I said I've taken better photos with my cell phone while black out drunk). And even assuming that you're right, two different types of dust is not proof of your insane fantasy.
Click to expand...

You can, in fact, see two different colors of the stuff I claim is WTC dust on data slide two.
 
excaza said:
You say the dust is 'strange,' yet after 9 years you completely lack the ability to quantitatively show why. You do not have results. You have assertions. Assertions are completely meaningless.
Click to expand...

After December 1st, if you come to the seminar or watch it on USTREAM, you'll have more information, and if you get to talking about my data as I present it to this forum, you'll get more information before then.
 
WTC Dust said:
After December 1st, if you come to the seminar or watch it on USTREAM
Click to expand...

No. I'd rather paint grass and watch it dry as it grows.

you'll have more information, and if you get to talking about my data as I present it to this forum, you'll get more information before then.
Click to expand...
You're not presenting data. You're presenting your assertions. You have no data, or you would be presenting it along with your conclusions like any rational scientist would.
 
dtugg said:
"Data slide number 2" is such a horrible photo that nothing can be inferred from it (like I said I've taken better photos with my cell phone while black out drunk). And even assuming that you're right, two different types of dust is not proof of your insane fantasy.
Click to expand...

Something you might like to keep in mind is that I am a patriot, and you will not be hearing me say that the United States government was behind the attacks of 9/11.

The people who say that still rile me up. The US government made many mistakes, but until I see some evidence that they did what was done, as opposed to a NORAD standdown that didn't happen or preplaced bombs in the WTC that also didn't happen, I'm not going to come out against the government.

At this point, I believe that 9/11 was an outside job, and that we really were attacked by terrorists, not our own government.
 
WTC Dust said:
Something you might like to keep in mind is that I am a patriot, and you will not be hearing me say that the United States government was behind the attacks of 9/11.

The people who say that still rile me up. The US government made many mistakes, but until I see some evidence that they did what was done, as opposed to a NORAD standdown that didn't happen or preplaced bombs in the WTC that also didn't happen, I'm not going to come out against the government.

At this point, I believe that 9/11 was an outside job, and that we really were attacked by terrorists, not our own government.
Click to expand...

This doesn't have anything remotely to do with either the post you quoted or this entire thread. Nor is it relevant to your inability to produce quantitative data after 9 years.
 
excaza said:
No. I'd rather paint grass and watch it dry as it grows.


You're not presenting data. You're presenting your assertions. You have no data, or you would be presenting it along with your conclusions like any rational scientist would.
Click to expand...


I think this is interesting. You want to see my data, but you want to sorta boss me around as you see it? You don't want to talk about the data that I present as I actually present it and you don't want to watch the seminar that I plan to give?

Curious. I hope you watch and ask questions live. I will be taking those questions during the seminar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom