WTC dust

[grandmastershek]

Presumes a plane.

So basically what you're saying Dust is that you conclude there is no plane and work backwards from there. Wow...you sure have a great grasp of science!

 

[Dragonrock]

Dusty,

First, I know you're a coward so you'll ignore this.

Second, as an example, when the secret service are learning to recognize counterfeit money they do it NOT by studying counterfeits, they study real money. Only after they have a complete understanding of what real bills look like do they look at the fake stuff. Similarly, you can't gain an understanding of structural engineering just by looking at one building that fell down. You must first learn how to design and build them and only then can you offer some educated opinion about how a building collapsed.

Third, I am not a structural engineer so I am relying on the educated opinion of actual structural engineers. Your education in biology, regardless of the specialty, does not offer you any expertise greater than mine in understanding structural engineering.

Therefore, we must both defer to the greater expertise of the structural engineers and your education is irrelevant.

 

[WTC Dust]

Why do truthers think they can just will their ideas into reality?

Research scientists, such as myself, are engaged in discovering new things about the world. Not supporting Bill, just saying that it is my vocation.

None of you, as far as I can tell, understand what I'm saying to you, but I don't think you've given me a fair chance.

You've been willful. You've already taken a stance. You say anyone who talks about 9/11 truth is a blah blah blah, and so far, you've been mostly correct. All of the theories about what happened on 9/11 are wrong, except one, and that includes the official plane crash conspiracy theory.

But you haven't really heard and contemplated what I'm telling you, yet, so you don't see the difference between what I've been telling you and everyone else.

 

[WTC Dust]

I am talking about the damage you posted a picture of. The small plane. Those question I would like an answer to. You cannot compare the two.

What were those huge things that crashed into the towers then ?

You haven't been paying attention. There was no debris bouncing off the south face of WTC 2, therefore there was no impact.

Call that "thing" what you want. There is no evidence of an impact between that "thing" and the south face of WTC 2.

 

[grandmastershek]

Research scientists, such as myself, are engaged in discovering new things about the world. Not supporting Bill, just saying that it is my vocation.

None of you, as far as I can tell, understand what I'm saying to you, but I don't think you've given me a fair chance.

You've been willful. You've already taken a stance. You say anyone who talks about 9/11 truth is a blah blah blah, and so far, you've been mostly correct. All of the theories about what happened on 9/11 are wrong, except one, and that includes the official plane crash conspiracy theory.

But you haven't really heard and contemplated what I'm telling you, yet, so you don't see the difference between what I've been telling you and everyone else.

Yeah...I hear similar nonsense from end times morons all the time.

 

[twinstead]

You should believe me because I'm a research scientist, and because engineering isn't a research science. It's an applied science. Getting an engineering degree is very different from getting a research degree.

This isn't to say that some engineers don't get extra training in research, and therefore are themselves research scientists. It's just that engineers are not engaged in the same activities as research scientists.

We describe previously unknown phenomena.

An engineer wouldn't typically have the intellectual tools and experience it takes to do this. They have other tools and do other things. They develop technology, they don't explain the universe.

I know you're probably not arrogant in real life, but the above merely comes off as arrogant. Frankly, a huge part of what happened on 9-11 is known phenomena, and to describe known phenomena I trust a working structural engineer more than a research scientist, the same way I would trust a working medical doctor to diagnose an illness more than a medical research scientist.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but some bio research scientist, no matter what his or her skills and "intellectual tools" are, is not going to convince anybody important that there is something fishy about the WTC collapses unless people who study buildings agree, your appeals otherwise notwithstanding.

 

[excaza]

None of you, as far as I can tell, understand what I'm saying to you, but I don't think you've given me a fair chance.

You've been given plenty of chances. You burned them all spouting nonsense, failing to understand physics, and doing junk 'science.' (and I'm being very generous with my use of science here)

I don't care if you've got a degree in every subject area on the planet, you're still wrong and your methodology is absolute garbage.

 

[grandmastershek]

You haven't been paying attention. There was no debris bouncing off the south face of WTC 2, therefore there was no impact.

Call that "thing" what you want. There is no evidence of an impact between that "thing" and the south face of WTC 2.

Aside from video and debris of that thing at the scene.

 

[WTC Dust]

So basically what you're saying Dust is that you conclude there is no plane and work backwards from there. Wow...you sure have a great grasp of science!

I'm a fantastic scientist, actually, and I love my work.

No, I didn't presume no planes. I've been studying the dust for 9 years.

I didn't even hear about no planes until 2004, or so, and didn't believe them until I had a chat with Dr. Morgan Reynolds in 2006. So, for at least 5 years of my work on the subject, I presumed that planes actually had flown into the WTC.

I was trying to figure out why Ground Zero burned for so long with so much rain in NYC that fall. 27 days of rain seemed like a lot of rain to me in the first 100 days after the attacks, and I expected the fire to have gone out before December 21, 2001.

When I walked by the Deutsche Bank in 2009 and smelled the same smell, you can imagine how strange that was (until I found that newspaper article explaining everything).

 

[WTC Dust]

Aside from video and debris of that thing at the scene.

Can you show me some video of debris bouncing off the south face of WTC 2 at 9:03AM?

So far, none of the videos I've seen show this. They show debris shooting out of the building after the "thing" went all the way in.

 

[WTC Dust]

You've been given plenty of chances. You burned them all spouting nonsense, failing to understand physics, and doing junk 'science.' (and I'm being very generous with my use of science here)

I don't care if you've got a degree in every subject area on the planet, you're still wrong and your methodology is absolute garbage.

Then stop following this thread.

If you have nothing to offer but that level of criticism, then you aren't doing anyone any good here.

 

[cntdrv55]

...you didn't comment on the fact that they found the pieces of the plane right at the foot of the building.

Lets see...

Mass - not comparable
Speed - not comparable
Fuel - not comparable

Why again did you bring this up?

without destroying itself[/B], right? Silly wabbit.

Of course not.

 

[Crazytimes]

You haven't been paying attention. There was no debris bouncing off the south face of WTC 2, therefore there was no impact.

Call that "thing" what you want. There is no evidence of an impact between that "thing" and the south face of WTC 2.

You are still ignoring my questions about the picture you posted. YOU are not paying attention

 

[jaydeehess]

Most people in the world .... think a plane crash is capable of destroying a steel building.

When its a large enough aircraft travelling fast enough then yes they do. In fact the people at the journal of impact engineering fall into this category.(see above)


See attached image for the minor destruction seen when an airplane crashed into the Bellaire Towers, here in NYC. Yes, it is a smaller plane, but look at the tiny amount of damage! The Bellaire Towers did not turn into dust, and they discovered most of the plane right at the foot of the building.[/QUOTE]

A TINY and slowly poking along aircraft compared to the craft that hit the WTC towers. The mass of the fuel on board the aircraft hitting either tower vastly outweighed the mass of the entire aircraft that hit the Bellaire and was travelling twice as fast.
First year physics can illustrate that these two aircarft crashes are not comparable. A much more involved treatment of the impact (see above reference) illustrates that "only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing" was required to fracture the steel column. A treatment done by persons who's day to day job includes analysis of impacts. Yet only two (TWO!!) persons with higher degrees say differently. Two persons with no specific qualifications in this field.

 

[triforcharity]

Most people in the world are Airplane Huggers. They think a plane crash is capable of destroying a steel building.

<Idiotic babble snipped>

See attached image for the minor destruction seen when an airplane crashed into the Bellaire Towers, here in NYC. Yes, it is a smaller plane, but look at the tiny amount of damage! The Bellaire Towers did not turn into dust, and they discovered most of the plane right at the foot of the building.

And what was the building made of? What kind of airplane was that? How fast was it going?

Why did you ignore my posts from the last 4 pages? Why do you ignore evidence?

 

[jaydeehess]

Can you show me some video of debris bouncing off the south face of WTC 2 at 9:03AM?

Can you illustrate why there should be any significant amount of debris doing so?

So far, none of the videos I've seen show this. They show debris shooting out of the building after the "thing" went all the way in.

You presume that there 'should' be a significant aount of debris 'bouncing off'. Yet you back this up only by repeating the stance that there 'should' be.

 

[triforcharity]

The fuming from Ground Zero lasted for years. I smelled the fumes coming from the Deutsche Bank in 2009, yes, 2009.

Then what article did I see in the Metro newspaper? Oh, really, they had to stop deconstruction efforts due to the accumulation of "smoke"?

Yay! I'm not imagining things! I actually did smell the fumes more than 8 years after the attacks of 9/11, coming from the Deutsche Bank.

There is no reason to install smoke removal equipment in a building that has been dead for 8 years. And, why would the smoke removal equipment fail? Because it was trying to remove something that wasn't smoke.

You can call me crazy, but that won't address the evidence. The article says they had to stop deconstruction efforts at the Deutsche Bank. I didn't write this article. I just walked by the building every day and wondered why I still smelled the WTC fumes.

There is when you are using axy-acetelyne torches to cut the building apart. It's called an exhaust fan. They fail due to many reasons. Solenoids going out, fuses popping, circuit breakers tripping, someone unplugging it, belt snapping, motor seizing up, you name it.

You're grasping at straws.

 

[grandmastershek]

I'm a fantastic scientist, actually, and I love my work.

No, I didn't presume no planes. I've been studying the dust for 9 years.

I didn't even hear about no planes until 2004, or so, and didn't believe them until I had a chat with Dr. Morgan Reynolds in 2006. So, for at least 5 years of my work on the subject, I presumed that planes actually had flown into the WTC.

I was trying to figure out why Ground Zero burned for so long with so much rain in NYC that fall. 27 days of rain seemed like a lot of rain to me in the first 100 days after the attacks, and I expected the fire to have gone out before December 21, 2001.

When I walked by the Deutsche Bank in 2009 and smelled the same smell, you can imagine how strange that was (until I found that newspaper article explaining everything).

Well until you account for the evidence of the plane you're assuming they weren't real w/o evidence. The bulk of your post is red herring.

 

[excaza]

Then stop following this thread.

If you have nothing to offer but that level of criticism, then you aren't doing anyone any good here.

I've offered you specific criticism throughout this thread and you've completely ignored it.

You show no understanding, not even an elementary one, of the subject matter required for you to be making the kinds of grand statements you're making. You've completely eschewed the scientific method, and are seemingly content to do whatever possible to justify your delusions instead of dealing with what you actually have in front of you.

There is no way to confirm the validity of your 'samples,' they were out of your possession, and not protected in any way, for 8 years. We're supposed to take you at your word that there's nothing wrong with them? That might fly in Candyland, but that's not how it works back here in the real world. You're making statements about your samples that you can't back up. You've made repeated assertions about the structure and composition of your dust, and supposedly how 'strange' it is, yet you can't produce any micrographs of the crystal structure, nor can you produce anything showing the mass composition of the dust in your possession. These are extraordinarily simple things to obtain. So again, we're supposed to take you at your word. Sorry, that's still not how it works. Then you give us the pH of your dust, as if it's supposed to mean something. pH? Of something that's supposed to be steel? Do you not grasp how idiotic that is? What exactly did they teach you in your chemistry classes?

I'm not even going to get into your conclusions. That all your evidence completely fails speaks enough about the conclusions you've drawn from them.

As to why I'm still following? It's very entertaining in that sad, train wreck sorta way.

 

[triforcharity]

Research scientists, such as myself, are engaged in discovering new things about the world. Not supporting Bill, just saying that it is my vocation.

None of you, as far as I can tell, understand what I'm saying to you, but I don't think you've given me a fair chance.

You've been willful. You've already taken a stance. You say anyone who talks about 9/11 truth is a blah blah blah, and so far, you've been mostly correct. All of the theories about what happened on 9/11 are wrong, except one, and that includes the official plane crash conspiracy theory.

But you haven't really heard and contemplated what I'm telling you, yet, so you don't see the difference between what I've been telling you and everyone else.

You have put two pictures of unknown substance, one so blurry all we can make out is the email address superimposed on it. The other is a pH level.

You have done precisely squat.

Why do you ignore someone when they explain smells of fires to you? Why should I listen to you on structural engineering, when you won't even listen to me when I provide facts and evidence of why the fire burned for 99 days? Why do you ignore me when I, as a firefighter, and a fire science professor, explain why the smell you think is so suspicious, is actually not suspicious at all? That is MY expertiese! I know fire. I know how it works. There are some here who know it better than I do. (Mackey for one)

Why do you ignore the stuff that is presented? Why should we listen to you, when you don't even address simple questions?

Please see here for a perfect example.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6600022#post6600022

And here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6597683&postcount=3468