• 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.
starri said:
Why is it worthless? It would prove conclusively that the mass composition of your dust/foam is the same as the samples collected as part of the official investigation, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

What is worthless, is this alleged dust from the WTC. A chain of custody has yet to be provided for the 8+ years it sat in the elements exposed to who knows what. Since the years are not accounted for any test results are invalid, as the dust has yet to be proven to be from 9/11/01.

The evidence for planes being hijacked and used as weapons by terrorists is overwhelming, no amount of handwaving will make it go away. Just because Dusty refuses to acknowledge this evidence does not make it non-existent.

Now she wants us to watch a video of John Hutchison, does anyone else see the irony here? John Hutchison, an admitted fraud, who made miraculous claims but could never reproduce the results he claimed to have previously made, sweet isn't it?

So the question remains, why are we entertaining this troll?
 
They are relatively small --
Excerpted from the link provided

The following information was converted from Fire, Fusion, & Steel 1st edition using the 07 DEC 1994 errata.

EXPLOSIVE POWER GENERATION
Also known as an Explosive Magnetic Flux Compressor (EMFC) or Flux Compression Generator (FCG), this technology uses the detonation of an explosive to generate power. It's primary use is to generate an large pulse of current to be employed in directed energy weapons.
TL Type Weight Volume Cost Density
9/9 Chemical Explosive Cartridge (CXC) .0088 .000027 $1 250J/g
10/9 Chemical Plasma Cartridge (CPC) .00528 .0000162 $5 417J/g
12/10 Pulse Plasma Cartridge (PPC) .00264 .0000081 $10 833J/g
14/11 Pulse Fusion Cartridge (PFC) .00176 .0000054 $25 1250J/g
16/13 Gravitic Compression Fusion (GCF) .00088 .0000027 $50 2500J/g

TL: Tech Level. The first number is the Traveller Tech Level (TTL) of introduction. The second number is the GURPS Tech Level (GTL) of introduction.
Weight: Multiply the energy output of the EPG generator (in kJ) to find the weight (lbs.).
Volume: Multiply the volume given by the EPG output (in kJ) to find the volume.
Cost: Multiply the cartridges weight by this value to get the actual cost.
Density: The energy density of the technology. Measured in Joules per gram.
Dimensions: The physical dimensions of the cartridge are:
Radius(R): .376 x (Volume/27)^(1/3) Volume in cubic feet. Radius in meters.
Diameter: 2 x R
Length: 6 x R

For example, an 12MJ output TL10 EPG cartridge would be 31.68lbs (rounded to 32 lbs), .0972 cf (rounded to .1), and cost $317. It would measure 116 x 348mm.

[NOTE: This compares to 12lbs, .12 cf, and $1200 for an TL8 Explosive Generator from the Vehicles Additions.
Click to expand...

Is someone realy quoting from a roleplaying game rules in support of a 'no planes' story?
 
WTC Dust said:
(snip)

My conclusion is that, without evidence that an airplane crash into the WTC can produce such material, the official theory of airplane crashes starting office fires can be ruled out as the mechanism of destruction of the WTC. It has been shown elsewhere by that no planes at all were found at any of the sites where they were said to have crashed that day. Convincing evidence of hijackings is also lacking.

A new mechanism for destruction of the WTC, and any other similar sized structures, is therefore concluded.
Click to expand...

Absurd.

We know that a building collapse will cause dust.

We know that a plane crashing into a building can and likely will cause said building to collapse.

Your argument from incredulity is patently absurd.
 
WTC Dust said:
It has been shown elsewhere by that no planes at all were found at any of the sites where they were said to have crashed that day.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that by repetition, you will somehow make this statement "true"?

Convincing evidence of hijackings is also lacking.
Click to expand...

All those "pesky" victims who died on those planes make your "convincing evidence" look like the sick joke it is...

...but why post this to an internet forum? Why not locate the family members of those who "supposedly" died on those "supposed" planes, and explain all this to them?...if you dare.
 
It totally soared over my head that WTC Dust is a no-planer. That explains a heckuva lot.
 
One of us disconnected from reality

Justin39640 said:
You don't notice the beams and other debris from the north tower?? This doesn't say anything to you? You're that disconnected from reality?
Click to expand...



Exhibit A is a photo still of the WTC7 tower after the WTC2 and WTC1 towers imploded.
363814ca3c71ec48fe.jpg


Exhibit B is the same photo with the location of the reporter outlined--
The corner of Barclay and West Broadway.
363814ce94e89a97a8.jpg


Finally -Exhibit C is a map from the NIST with the same location outlined.
363814ce94f5189030.jpg

Note the distance of Barclay & West Broadway from the WTC1 or WTC2 twin towers.

OK Justin- Help me reconnect to reality-
Using exhibits A & B point out any interior or exterior beams or debris on the
roof of the WTC7 tower.

Now refer to exhibit C and explain how the beams from either WTC twin tower jumped
over the WTC7 tower and landed at the corner of Barclay and West Broadway to set fire
to "CAR AFTER CAR AFTER CAR" as the reporter states.
One of us disconnected from reality Justin - The evidence indicates it is
YOU that is seriously delusional. Bic ?
 
Paper can ignite fires too. So can other flaming debris, which was strewn all over lower Manhattan.

You fail at evidence.
 
WTC Dust said:
The problem with the examination of the dust from the WTC has been one of scale.

JREFers have insisted that I do a mass composition analysis, which essentially measures things at the atomic scale. There are many images available of the dust at a microscopic scale. This data proves worthless because of the lack of insight and lack of focus on the macroscopic scale.

I want to think about the WTC dust from the largest possible scale and work downwards. Focusing on the tiniest fraction of the dust is very much like missing the forest for all the trees.

The largest examination of WTC dust should begin with the photographs from space. I am assuming that the dust that was found in the ground was formed by the same process that produced the fumes that rose up into the sky. These photographs show the fumes streaming away from the WTC site, proving that it was not steam. The fact that the same images of the fumes on 9/11 also included the gigantic hurricane Erin is noted.

On the scale of a city, the dust that came from the WTC covered all of Manhattan south of the buildings, even flowing into the rivers in parts, and also reached for many blocks north of the towers, spreading east and west across most of the island. The fumes that rose from the WTC site were mostly white and appeared to expand in a foam-like manner. The fumes that rose most directly from the center of the site appeared dark gray in color.

In the centimeter scale, the dust is most assuredly multitypical, meaning there are at least two types of dust, dark and light. The lighter colored dust is denser than the darker dust and is itself heterogeneous, with bits and pieces of different looking material sprinkled in. The darker dust is much like a foam, similar to a meringue that has been frozen, with obvious round holes or air pockets forming the material itself. Both the lighter colored dust and the darker dust, although very crumbly and very given to generating fine dust, has a physical consistency and solidness that allows it to be picked up and handled. The dust can make a magnet move when placed close to a magnet on a string.

My conclusion is that, without evidence that an airplane crash into the WTC can produce such material, the official theory of airplane crashes starting office fires can be ruled out as the mechanism of destruction of the WTC. It has been shown elsewhere by that no planes at all were found at any of the sites where they were said to have crashed that day. Convincing evidence of hijackings is also lacking.

A new mechanism for destruction of the WTC, and any other similar sized structures, is therefore concluded.
Click to expand...

I am going to take the unusual step at this point to ask you more about your credentials.

Normally, it would be bad form to do so. Your arguments should rest on their own merits.

However, it is you who have subtly introduced the "facts" that you are a research scientist with a PhD who was thought highly of by her professors. This was clearly intended to bolster your arguments and convince us of their veracity.

However, your arguments cannot stand on their own. The quoted section here reveals that you use the words of academic rigor, but understand little of their application.

You think starting with a conclusion and working your way backward is a legitimate approach. You don't comprehend, or you simply ignore, the importance of clean, uncontaminated evidence. You construct (as above) blatant non-sequiturs. You make all the mistakes that this rest of us learned not to make as undergraduates, or high school students.

And yet, you continue to "name-drop" little tidbits of your academic credentials.

So, I am going to insist that you answer a few questions about these credentials.

Is the university you earned your PhD from accredited by a sanctioned organization?

When is the last time you worked in the field in which you earned your PhD?

Did you actually meet your professors face-to-face?

Finally, how long after the check cleared did you receive your diploma?

Don't tell me these questions are irrelevant unless you are prepared to stop making claims about your credentials and simply present your arguments at face value.
 
One follow-up question to the above. Have you suffered any illness or injury since receiving your degree that might possibly compromise your ability to function?
 
starri said:
But--and moderators, if I step across a line of civility and politeness, I apologize, and accept whatever reprimand you feel appropriate--I think that as bad as your science seems to be, your humanity is worse.

Shame on you.
Click to expand...

I actually don't consider this post to be an insult. You've explained yourself gently and with respect. I would like to hear more from you.

My issue is this: I think I'm right. I don't think that airplanes caused the damage. I'm not saying the people didn't die. I know they died. I smelled them. One of the things I swore at the time was that nobody would ever be able to tell me that "nobody died" at the WTC because I was right there, smelling the dead bodies. And I do know what dead bodies smell like, having worked for many years in the biomedical research field.

Another thing I knew from my research experience, as well as life experience, is that the smell coming from Ground Zero was not from an ordinary fire. I swore to myself again that day that nobody would ever be able to convince me that it was an ordinary fire, because I was right there smelling the fire. The size of a fire has nothing to do with the smell. What is on fire determines the smell, and I knew that nothing in my life experience had ever brought me into contact with such a smell.

Given these two pieces of knowledge that no one can ever take away from me and that nobody will ever change, how in your thought process does that bring shame upon me?

And here's something that might bring some "shame" upon you, although I do not wish you to feel shame. Insisting that what I smelled was an ordinary fire is siding with those who say that the fire fighters dying left and right were dying from exposure to an ordinary fire. These people who are critically ill deserve to know the truth, as does everyone else who was exposed to the air in lower Manhattan for all those months.

I'm siding with the dead and with the living victims by searching for the real cause of destruction and the real perpetrators. You think hijackings and plane crashes were involved on 9/11, and I'm sorry about that, but I cannot be responsible for your own misconceptions. You have to be the one to come out of them yourself, and if you do, then you will see that I am very highly honoring the dead by finding the real perpetrators. You might like to see Osama bin Laden caught and punished for this crime, but would you really like it if that meant that the real perpetrators were never discovered?

9/11 isn't over. People are living who deserve the truth.
 
aggle-rithm said:
One follow-up question to the above. Have you suffered any illness or injury since receiving your degree that might possibly compromise your ability to function?
Click to expand...

Minor to moderate breathing and skin irritation were my symptoms. I haven't done anything creepy like tried to join in the victims funds or tried to get money for this.
 
R.A.F. said:
Do you believe that by repetition, you will somehow make this statement "true"?



All those "pesky" victims who died on those planes make your "convincing evidence" look like the sick joke it is...

...but why post this to an internet forum? Why not locate the family members of those who "supposedly" died on those "supposed" planes, and explain all this to them?...if you dare.
Click to expand...

Why don't you locate them for me. If they had family members that are no longer around, does that mean necessarily that they didn't die? I have no theory at all about what happened to the victims who were said to be on those planes. I know about the destruction actually witnessed and documented from the crime scenes, and that evidence does not indicate anything about plane crashes, despite the stories.
 
HeyLeroy said:
Absurd.

We know that a building collapse will cause dust.

We know that a plane crashing into a building can and likely will cause said building to collapse.

Your argument from incredulity is patently absurd.
Click to expand...

A building collapse doesn't cause dust for an entire year, though, not to mention that it doesn't cause the type of dust seen rolling down the streets on 9/11 and found in the nook where I found it. You have to explain the data, not ignore the data that doesn't fit preconceptions.

No building that ever collapsed caused metallic foam to appear. No building that ever caught fire generated metallic foam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom