WTC dust

[Mikemcc]

Even if the bodies were crushed, you'd find the entire body right there, where it was crushed.

You're saying gravity did it, unless I am misunderstanding you. Gravity works in the downward direction only.

Already posted on JREF:

So were's the bodies in there? That block represents a portion of at least 3 floors of the WTC

 

[alienentity]

Even if the bodies were crushed, you'd find the entire body right there, where it was crushed.

You're saying gravity did it, unless I am misunderstanding you. Gravity works in the downward direction only.

You don't know what you're talking about. Sadly you do not appear to care, since you persist in making such glaring errors.

I caution you to step back from your bare assertions.

 

[Justin39640]

Already posted on JREF:

[qimg]http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/pancake-large-crop-0.01-0.13-0.99-0.94.jpg[/qimg]

So were's the bodies in there? That block represents a portion of at least 3 floors of the WTC

Looks like rebar is DEW-proof.

 

[WTC Dust]

That is another weak argument (you seem to have a knack for this); there are plenty of mainstream physics journals which would be an appropriate place to publish a paper on an effect such as the one you propose.

However, you know and we know that you haven't sent your dust to a lab to determine its composition, let alone begun to describe, in competent scientific terms, how the quantum-level Casimir effect could dustify 300,000 tons of steel.

If your judgment weren't so impaired by whatever mania has possessed you, you could and would co-write the paper with an established physicist - an expert in the Casimir effect and experimental quantum physics, hopefully - and you'd already have been able to describe the process to us here at JREF.

But that isn't going to happen, is it? You're actually worse than Messrs Jones and Harrit, because while they too are invoking an appeal to magic clothed in a sciency idea, they have at least gone to the extent to quantify their claim and publish it.
You are apparently far too lazy to do this kind of due diligence, but you do share the common trait of clinging to an idea in spite of all the clear evidence which refutes it.

Your lack of competence in the necessary areas, along with your innate arrogance, contrarianism, and narcissism, have converged in a perfect storm to overwhelm whatever good judgment you might have.



You are most definitely confused.

I came to JREF not that long ago. I decided that I had enough to begin writing this paper not that long ago. I'm not a person who is heavily invested in the "publish or perish" phenomenon.

I agree 100% that, so far, I have almost nothing to show for my work. My seminar on Dec. 1st is an attempt to change that. Notice it still isn't a paper? I'm not stuck on writing a paper. Why write a paper, when there's no one to accept the paper?

I can't even submit an article to the Journal of 9/11 Truth because they are stuck on thermite, not that I consider that to be a legitimate journal, because I don't.

 

[Oystein]

And you're claiming all this energy came from a plane crash and gravity?

No. I claim the energy for the collapse itself, and for all the dust created during the 15s (+/-) collapse, came from gravity alone.

Since the towers each had a mass of about 300,000,000kg, that mass fell an average of 170m (about 40% of the total height of tzhe towers), and gravity accelerates things at 9.805 m/s² in New York City, the energy provided by gravity was GPE = m*h*g = (rounded) 500,000,000,000 Joules.
Release these in 15 seconds, and you get a power of GPE/15s = 33,333,333,333 Watts, which I had rouinded to 30,000MW.

If you claim gravity did not provide enough energy, you are claiming that 500,000,000,000 Joules were not enough. You must then propose another source of energy, and how it was applieds to each tower. This source of energy should provide at least 500,000,000,000 Joules of energy, and a power of at least 30,000,000,000 Watts, foor only then would be equally powerful as gravity.

So: What is your claim?

 

[Justin39640]

I came to JREF not that long ago. I decided that I had enough to begin writing this paper not that long ago. I'm not a person who is heavily invested in the "publish or perish" phenomenon.

I agree 100% that, so far, I have almost nothing to show for my work. My seminar on Dec. 1st is an attempt to change that. Notice it still isn't a paper? I'm not stuck on writing a paper. Why write a paper, when there's no one to accept the paper?

I can't even submit an article to the Journal of 9/11 Truth because they are stuck on thermite, not that I consider that to be a legitimate journal, because I don't.

If you could prove scientifically that 1WTC and 2WTC had their steel skeletons turned to dust, every physics journal in the world would accept your work.

 

[DGM]

I have almost nothing to show for my work. My seminar on Dec. 1st is an attempt to change that. .

OK now I'm stumped, Your going to have a seminar to show you have nothing? Are you hoping someone will bring you something?

 

[WTC Dust]

Already posted on JREF:

[qimg]http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/pancake-large-crop-0.01-0.13-0.99-0.94.jpg[/qimg]

So were's the bodies in there? That block represents a portion of at least 3 floors of the WTC

Why are you asking me that question when I made the assertion that there were almost no fully intact bodies found who were inside the buildings when they were destroyed?

They found actual, living people inside the buildings. They found intact bodies from the jumpers. The emergency rooms across NYC were fully staffed after 9/11, waiting for all the victims, but very few arrived, and almost no burn victims. It seems like either you made it out alive and dusty or you were blown to bits. Not much in between. Poor folks.

 

[Justin39640]

No. I claim the energy for the collapse itself, and for all the dust created during the 15s (+/-) collapse, came from gravity alone.

Since the towers each had a mass of about 300,000,000kg, that mass fell an average of 170m (about 40% of the total height of tzhe towers), and gravity accelerates things at 9.805 m/s² in New York City, the energy provided by gravity was GPE = m*h*g = (rounded) 500,000,000,000 Joules.
Release these in 15 seconds, and you get a power of GPE/15s = 33,333,333,333 Watts, which I had rouinded to 30,000MW.

If you claim gravity did not provide enough energy, you are claiming that 500,000,000,000 Joules were not enough. You must then propose another source of energy, and how it was applieds to each tower. This source of energy should provide at least 500,000,000,000 Joules of energy, and a power of at least 30,000,000,000 Watts, foor only then would be equally powerful as gravity.

So: What is your claim?

I have a feeling she "thinks" that you are arguing that the steel was turned to dust by gravity alone and not a DEW. Hence the "not enough energy" argument. Is that circular stupidity?

 

[WTC Dust]

OK now I'm stumped, Your going to have a seminar to show you have nothing? Are you hoping someone will bring you something?

I have produced almost nothing on the subject of 9/11 .... so far. But that will change.

I have written a book. Didn't I tell you about the book? It hasn't been accepted for publication because I haven't submitted it for publication, because I'm not big on that.

In terms of this paper that I now feel ready to write, it's going to be an academic publication with proper peer review, or nothing. I'm not going halfway on this, so don't expect a proper paper until I find the proper venue.

 

[leftysergeant]

However, you know and we know that you haven't sent your dust to a lab to determine its composition, let alone begun to describe, in competent scientific terms, how the quantum-level Casimir effect could dustify 300,000 tons of steel.

I have been trying to figure out how that Casimir effect might be employed to break the towers. I have seen no description of a means of projecting the forces outward from whatever breadboard apparatus researchers have been able to put together to produce it. I can see no way of applying it locally without erecting steel plates the size of Jupiter on either side of the towers.

You're actually worse than Messrs Jones and Harrit, because while they too are invoking an appeal to magic clothed in a sciency idea, they have at least gone to the extent to quantify their claim and publish it.

Their theory also has the advantage of working in the real world and of being falsifiable. Their main problem is that they are too dim-witted to realize that the disproof of their BS has already been presented.

You are apparently far too lazy to do this kind of due diligence, but you do share the common trait of clinging to an idea in spite of all the clear evidence which refutes it.

Your lack of competence in the necessary areas, along with your innate arrogance, contrarianism, and narcissism, have converged in a perfect storm to overwhelm whatever good judgment you might have.

WTCD also fails to consider what observable effects might be produced by the competing theories. Has anyone ever seen a body torn apart from a phenomenon known to have been caused by the Casimir effect? I have never heard of one.

The condition of the bodies in the towers is, to an old crash crew member like me, more reminiscent of the effects that gravity and inertia have on bodies when an airplane lands wrong.

 

[alienentity]

I came to JREF not that long ago. I decided that I had enough to begin writing this paper not that long ago. I'm not a person who is heavily invested in the "publish or perish" phenomenon.

I agree 100% that, so far, I have almost nothing to show for my work. My seminar on Dec. 1st is an attempt to change that. Notice it still isn't a paper? I'm not stuck on writing a paper. Why write a paper, when there's no one to accept the paper?

I can't even submit an article to the Journal of 9/11 Truth because they are stuck on thermite, not that I consider that to be a legitimate journal, because I don't.

Dr Blevins, it was you who offered a particularly weak excuse why you haven't published a paper yet. However, it was not the excuse you offered subsequently. It seems you are jumping from one excuse to another, yet they contradict one another - on one hand you make the excuse that you only decided to write the paper recently; on another you claim you are not 'stuck' on writing a paper (in other words, you're not interested); but then you claim 'there's no one to accept the paper'.

So which excuse is it then? You seem very confused as to whether it's someone else's responsibility whether you write a paper or not (it isn't); whether you should be interested or not (that's your fault); and whether it would be accepted or not (again, that's your mind game only).

Nobody has rejected your paper, nobody has censored you, nobody is stopping you. Your failure to produce a competent scientific paper is your sole responsibility. You will recall that you boasted of being a lone, maverick scientist - you even arrogantly appointed yourself as the #2 9/11 researcher on the planet.

But you haven't published a single paper on the subject, nor have you been published in any major journal of any kind.

Do you not realize how incredibly arrogant you are?

 

[DGM]

I have produced almost nothing on the subject of 9/11 .... so far. But that will change.

I have written a book. Didn't I tell you about the book? It hasn't been accepted for publication because I haven't submitted it for publication, because I'm not big on that.

In terms of this paper that I now feel ready to write, it's going to be an academic publication with proper peer review, or nothing. I'm not going halfway on this, so don't expect a proper paper until I find the proper venue.

I remember you said you wrote a book. You also said you have nothing to show for your 9 year efforts. What then is in this book? Can you see why I'm confused?

 

[alienentity]

OK now I'm stumped, Your going to have a seminar to show you have nothing? Are you hoping someone will bring you something?

This is a seriously confused person. No question about it. What a waste of intellect.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I know there were suvivors that lived who were found inside the building. Stairwell B, WTC 1, I think it was. I also know that there was steel left over after the destruction.

Same thing. The effect was not complete. Some people survived inside the building. Some steel survived.

You just told me that every body was smashed to bits. Now you're moving backwards. I'm okay with that, but this is something that should trigger warning bells to you.

You have to explain how the bodies got blown to bits equally as much as you have to explain how the steel got blown into bits. Someone else has already suggested to me that anything that would affect the iron in steel might effect the iron circulating in a person's bloodstream. I tend to agree, and I absolutely insist that whatever smashed the building into bits is the same thing that smashed the people into bits.

I concur, the same thing that smashed the building smashed the people. We differ in that I have evidence that it was gravitational potential energy. You only have speculation that is contradicted by evidence.

 

[WTC Dust]

I have a feeling she "thinks" that you are arguing that the steel was turned to dust by gravity alone and not a DEW. Hence the "not enough energy" argument. Is that circular stupidity?

Not at all. I'm talking about the official plane crash conspiracy, which didn't happen, you know, the thing most of you believed happened?

I understand that most of you erroneously believe that all of the steel remained.

I'm talking about your theory, not reality. Your theory includes fire, gravity and perhaps wind, and nothing else at the moment the buildings were destroyed, unless you have some other ideas, in which case you are going outside the official plane crash conspiracy.

My theory includes a stationary building that turned largely into dust while standing. The energy came from the material itself, I'm claiming, through manipulation of the attractive energy of the molecules that made up the structure of the building (and people). The normally net attractive force was overcome, I believe, by manipulating the electromagnetic field around the WTC such that the radiant energy of the field was greater than that of the Casimir effect, or in some way changed the Casimir effect from a net positive (attractive) to a net negative (repulsive) force.

The steel that made up the WTC lost its strength precipitously. I say it's because the molecules of the steel were pushed apart by the changes in the forces acting upon them. All of this is my interpretation of the mechanism of action, but it was Dr. Judy Wood who discovered this, not me.

I think she's a genius. She found the mechanism of destruction. Go, Judy! It's ya birfday!

 

[WTC Dust]

I remember you said you wrote a book. You also said you have nothing to show for your 9 year efforts. What then is in this book? Can you see why I'm confused?

The book was written before my latest discoveries, and included nothing original from me (except the artwork). I did not pursue publication of the book, but I did have a few copies printed so that I could spread the word more easily.

The book has a few typos and errors in it. <shrug> I know more now than I did when I wrote the book, and I need to correct them if I ever plan to print any more.

This is compatible with me having almost no results in 9 years, wouldn't you say? Just one book that isn't my own research that even has a few errors. Not very much.

 

[Mikemcc]

Why are you asking me that question when I made the assertion that there were almost no fully intact bodies found who were inside the buildings when they were destroyed?

They found actual, living people inside the buildings. They found intact bodies from the jumpers. The emergency rooms across NYC were fully staffed after 9/11, waiting for all the victims, but very few arrived, and almost no burn victims. It seems like either you made it out alive and dusty or you were blown to bits. Not much in between. Poor folks.

Because you made the insinuation that thereason that there werefew remains in the debris is due to your fanciful DEW weapon, whereas my picture of that block indicates that severe events happened throughout the building, that there could be remains within that block. It's impossible to tell because of the severity of these events, but those events are entirely explainable by conventional physics without woo DEWs.

 

[WTC Dust]

Because you made the insinuation that thereason that there werefew remains in the debris is due to your fanciful DEW weapon, whereas my picture of that block indicates that severe events happened throughout the building, that there could be remains within that block. It's impossible to tell because of the severity of these events, but those events are entirely explainable by conventional physics without woo DEWs.

Stetching it, maybe, but nothing explains metallic dust inside the realm of conventional physics.

 

[WTC Dust]

Dr Blevins, it was you who offered a particularly weak excuse why you haven't published a paper yet. However, it was not the excuse you offered subsequently. It seems you are jumping from one excuse to another, yet they contradict one another - on one hand you make the excuse that you only decided to write the paper recently; on another you claim you are not 'stuck' on writing a paper (in other words, you're not interested); but then you claim 'there's no one to accept the paper'.

So which excuse is it then? You seem very confused as to whether it's someone else's responsibility whether you write a paper or not (it isn't); whether you should be interested or not (that's your fault); and whether it would be accepted or not (again, that's your mind game only).

Nobody has rejected your paper, nobody has censored you, nobody is stopping you. Your failure to produce a competent scientific paper is your sole responsibility. You will recall that you boasted of being a lone, maverick scientist - you even arrogantly appointed yourself as the #2 9/11 researcher on the planet.

But you haven't published a single paper on the subject, nor have you been published in any major journal of any kind.

Do you not realize how incredibly arrogant you are?

I didn't have anything ORIGINAL to add to the conversation until recently. I have been published in semi-major journals when I was doing bioengineering and biochemistry. Just not on the subject of 9/11, yet.

I told you the reason that I consider myself #2. Because, to my understanding, no other scientists support Dr. Judy Wood, and she is #1.