• 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:
DEW is Dr. Judy Wood's theory.

"The WTC was turned largely into dust" is my theory. I'm not talking about the weapon used. I'm talking about the mechanism.
Click to expand...


Fine. Replace "DEW weapon" by "mechanism that instantly dustifies steel." No such mechanism exists, there is no evidence such a mechanism was at work at 9/11. And even the most superficial inspection of the photographic evidence shows the steel was not dustified, ruling out any such mechanism. You are still wrong.
 
WTC Dust said:
So, why don't you prove me wrong? Why don't you take just one of the four suggested hijackings that day, and prove that it happened.
Click to expand...

Because you'll reject the proof, whatever it is. You have no conception of reasonable doubt, so you will simply claim that every item of proof could conceivably have been forged, and will therefore claim it's invalid.

It's not possible to reason with insane people, so I don't intend to try to reason with you.

Dave
 
NutCracker said:
Fine. Replace "DEW weapon" by "mechanism that instantly dustifies steel." No such mechanism exists, there is no evidence such a mechanism was at work at 9/11. And even the most superficial inspection of the photographic evidence shows the steel was not dustified, ruling out any such mechanism. You are still wrong.
Click to expand...

My samples say otherwise.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Because you'll reject the proof, whatever it is. You have no conception of reasonable doubt, so you will simply claim that every item of proof could conceivably have been forged, and will therefore claim it's invalid.

It's not possible to reason with insane people, so I don't intend to try to reason with you.

Dave
Click to expand...

Hey, man. Give it a try. I'm really a nice person. I will listen to your story.
 
WTC Dust said:
My samples say otherwise.
Click to expand...

How do you know the following:

1) The sample came from the WTC @ 9/11/2001?

2) The sample was not contaminated at or after 9/11/2001?

3) The sample contains steel dust?

4) The supposed steel dust came from the structural members of thw WTC?

5) The supposed steel dust was not made by some ordinary mechanism?

6) The supposed dust played a causal part in the WTC collapses?
 
WTC Dust said:
Dave,

I can see you care about this. So, why don't you prove me wrong? Why don't you take just one of the four suggested hijackings that day, and prove that it happened.

Don't tell me that stories are sufficient evidence, because stories are weak. I want substantial proof that hijackings occurred.
Click to expand...

Since you are the one making a claim contrary to what the evidence shows, it's up to you to provide support for your claim. You cannot simply make up a statement and say "prove me wrong" like that when the positively established history says otherwise. It's up to you to prove that the evidence we've been given leads to any conclusion other than hijackings occurred. So you start.
 
NutCracker said:
How do you know the following:

1) The sample came from the WTC @ 9/11/2001?

location of the find, similarity with published literature on the dust

2) The sample was not contaminated at or after 9/11/2001?

it was contaminated with cigarette butts but not rain, due to the concrete overhang

3) The sample contains steel dust?

They don't contain steel dust. They are made up of material that used to be steel. High iron content and magnetism.

4) The supposed steel dust came from the structural members of thw WTC?

The picture in my avatar suggests where the darker dust came from.

5) The supposed steel dust was not made by some ordinary mechanism?

I don't know of any ordinary mechanism that can generate metallic foam, but I'm willing to listen if you have one.

6) The supposed dust played a causal part in the WTC collapses?
Click to expand...

The WTC didn't collapse. The dust didn't play a causal role in the destruction of the WTC. It was what the WTC became.
 
2) The sample was not contaminated at or after 9/11/2001?

it was contaminated with cigarette butts but not rain, due to the concrete overhang

BWHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Oh my god, oh my man.

I am taking this stundie!!!!
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Since you are the one making a claim contrary to what the evidence shows, it's up to you to provide support for your claim. You cannot simply make up a statement and say "prove me wrong" like that when the positively established history says otherwise. It's up to you to prove that the evidence we've been given leads to any conclusion other than hijackings occurred. So you start.
Click to expand...

What is the actual evidence that a hijacking occurred? A video of a plane doesn't even prove that. Theoretically, a crazy pilot who had been given the keys could have been behind the stick. (Do airplanes use keys? No idea.) Not that what we saw at 9:03AM on 9/11 was a plane crash. Just saying even if it was, it doesn't prove that plane was hijacked.
 
WTC Dust said:
I'm not. I'm suggesting something that validates the widely KNOWN laws of physics, but so what? New aspects of physics are being learned about every day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/science/06atom.html

This New York Times article (July 5, 2010) discusses the new science.

“It’s a billion times more intense than any other X-ray source available before,” said Linda Young, director of X-ray science division at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, who led the neon experiment. “You need to understand how this ultra intense X-ray source will interact with matter. If you do it with something simple, you can see every step of the process.”

"For now, SLAC’s X-ray laser is unique in the world, although Germany and Japan are planning similar facilities that are to turn on in a few years.

Not everyone is happy about the new SLAC, but even some of the old-timers see the change as necessary. “I think the future is grand,” said Dr. Richter. “The future is not the same as the past, but the future is never the same as the past.”
Click to expand...

Lol, no. The LCLS is 3km long, can't be aimed, would not effect steel the way you propose, and was not online until 2009. X-ray lasers did not even exist before then.

You are in fact the one proposing things like free energy via resonance that violate the laws of physics.
 
phunk said:
Lol, no. The LCLS is 3km long, can't be aimed, would not effect steel the way you propose, and was not online until 2009. X-ray lasers did not even exist before then.

You are in fact the one proposing things like free energy via resonance that violate the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

Stop thinking that the laws of physics were violated! It didn't happen!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom