• 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.
I'm confused that a PhD in almost ANY discipline wouldn't know what small, relatively lighter things can do to strong things given enough velocity. That's a long time in school; you'd think it would have come up once or twice. I remember seeing pictures of a two-by-four through a tree trunk from tornadoes early on in life, for example.
 
Last edited:
excaza said:
I'm willing to bet the pH reading was that of whatever tap water dusty attempted to mix the metal into.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I was wondering.

I mean, even iron (II) hydroxide, which is a classical Bronsted-Lowry base doesn't dissolve all that well, and it doesn't get formed from elemental iron anyway; it usually is from a reaction of a different iron salt. And I think if I'm thinking about the reaction kinetics and ionic interactions right, it would form by precipitating out of a reaction when something like an alkaline hydroxide solution was mixed with something like iron (II) sulfate.

None of which involves the formation of a magnetic foam.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Blurry pictures and pH are so much more telling by a scientist who really CARES though!
Click to expand...

And whose sense of smell must be better than trained sniffer dogs since one of her main arguments has been how strange the smell was.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The excuse that follows is a fabrication as well.

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...

My conclusion is that you're a fraud and that your opinion is worthless.
 
WTC Dust claims that she's a "research scientist". Ok, then she openly admitted to me long ago that she was a biologist.

Her research about organic materials, she's not a metallurgist nor a structural engineer.
 
See, reading up on lake Malawi, I learned about the African Great Lakes region. Learn something new every day
 
Don't we have copies of the WTC blueprints somewhere? Wouldn't they list the thickness of the steel in the exterior box columns?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom