• 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 an expert on what destroyed the WTC. When it comes to the Pentagon and Shanksville, less so, but they didn't reconstruct either plane that should have been there had there been a plane crash.

I'm saying these events weren't plane crashes. There might have been a plane involved, but not plane crashes.

Plane crashes leave specific evidence behind, namely A PLANE!

:-)


NoahFence said:
Say Dusty - care to link your asinine theory with.... you know.....the rest of the day's events?

Surely you're not implying that a crash in Shanksville and another at the Pentagon are mere coincidence?
Click to expand...
 
aggle-rithm said:
If your work is research, and you don't get paid for it, then...actually...that's exactly what it means.
Click to expand...

I suppose one could do work of a professional quality while not getting paid for it. Obviously, with the poor quality of work thus far exhibited that's not the case here.
 
WTC Dust said:
Not every bit of it turned to dust. Some of it remained.
Click to expand...

Yes, about 99% of it.

The WTC wasn't particularly filled with hydrocarbons, any more than a regular building.
Click to expand...

In concentration...yes. In overall quantity...much more than a regular building, since the towers were much bigger than a regular building.

Besides, they didn't find chunks of burned things. They found tiny, fragmented pieces of things amid all this dust.
Click to expand...

Yes, unfortunately a rather large building fell onto these things. Perhaps you heard about it in the news.
 
DGM said:
Dr Wood does not explain how her "beam" works with math or science. Could you link to where she explains it (if I missed it)?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of videos out there of John Hutchison doing his thing. Mel Winfield (recently deceased) did the math on it.
 
WTC Dust said:
I'm an expert on what destroyed the WTC. When it comes to the Pentagon and Shanksville, less so, but they didn't reconstruct either plane that should have been there had there been a plane crash.

I'm saying these events weren't plane crashes. There might have been a plane involved, but not plane crashes.

Plane crashes leave specific evidence behind, namely A PLANE!

:-)
Click to expand...

You're an expert? Please. You missed the blatantly obvious fact that two planes flew into the World Trade Center and you're an expert? This is a serious topic. It deserves better than you.
 
Yes, there was. Remember what the fire fighters referred to as "molten metal"? Well it wasn't really molten, but it was in the basement of the WTC.

Amazingly I do have images of this on my Facebook page. Why don't you friend me?

Craig4 said:
There wasn't any foam found at the WTC either.
Click to expand...
 
I don't make the rules. I'd get paid if there were any research labs focusing on this, but there aren't, so I have to make my money doing research that does have a funding source.

aggle-rithm said:
If your work is research, and you don't get paid for it, then...actually...that's exactly what it means.
Click to expand...
 
Because Dr. Dusty was in the unique position of residing in Manhattan (haw haw) she made the unique discovery that the twin towers became metallic foam. Shouldn't she change her handle to WTC Foam?

Maybe not, because ISTR that a lot of people who couldn't get out of the way of the collapse cloud in time were covered in dust--not foam.

I do think she should change her sig line though. The towers turning to dust in midair doesn't explain the destruction of the surrounding buildings very well....
 
WTC Dust said:
I'm an expert on what destroyed the WTC. When it comes to the Pentagon and Shanksville, less so, but they didn't reconstruct either plane that should have been there had there been a plane crash.
Click to expand...

Crashed planes are reconstructed to determine why they crashed. That's because, in most cases, when a plane crashes there aren't hundreds or thousands of people watching it happen.

I'm saying these events weren't plane crashes. There might have been a plane involved, but not plane crashes.

Plane crashes leave specific evidence behind, namely A PLANE!

:-)
Click to expand...

An INTACT plane? Really?

Can you provide an example of a plane crash that left an intact plane behind?
 
WTC Dust said:
Yes, there was. Remember what the fire fighters referred to as "molten metal"? Well it wasn't really molten, but it was in the basement of the WTC.

Amazingly I do have images of this on my Facebook page. Why don't you friend me?
Click to expand...

I'd rather take all the skin off my left leg with a dull potato peeler.
 
WTC Dust said:
I don't make the rules. I'd get paid if there were any research labs focusing on this, but there aren't, so I have to make my money doing research that does have a funding source.
Click to expand...

Well, I certainly hope for your sake that the research that you get paid for is performed with greater skill than your pro bono work.
 
WTC Dust said:
I don't make the rules. I'd get paid if there were any research labs focusing on this, but there aren't, so I have to make my money doing research that does have a funding source.
Click to expand...

Well, nothing succeeds like success. The fact you can't get paid for this should be telling you something.
 
I'm an expert on what destroyed the World Trade Center, and since it wasn't planes, I can't claim to be an expert on planes, although I certainly am compared to you and most!

Planes did not destroy the WTC. Something else did. I'm working on that something else. The only reason I ever talk about planes is because other people bring it up. They are laboring under false information, not me, and it's rather tedious to have this constantly brought up.

You don't need to tell me the official story of 9/11. I've already heard it. You don't need to tell me that an object that appeared to be a plane was in the sky on 9/11, because all evidence points in this direction.

You can't tell me there was a plane crash at the south face of WTC 2 on 9:03AM. Unless you can. If you can, then things will be easy. Show me a video of 9:03AM that shows evidence of a plane crashing into the south face of WTC 2, and I will change my story. What needs to be in evidence is debris bouncing off the south face of WTC 2 (because while some parts of a plane would continue on into the building, surely at least some parts of the plane would bounce off the south face (the site of impact)), and also evidence of the wake that follows every airplane. You know, that big column of air that follows an airplane in flight? This wake would have slammed up against both WTC 1 and WTC 2 and caused a dramatic mixing of the explosions and fumes.



Craig4 said:
You're an expert? Please. You missed the blatantly obvious fact that two planes flew into the World Trade Center and you're an expert? This is a serious topic. It deserves better than you.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
There are plenty of videos out there of John Hutchison doing his thing. Mel Winfield (recently deceased) did the math on it.
Click to expand...
Yes there is.

You'll have to forgive me if I'm skeptical of their work. Is this "device" land based or space? Both create problems she has not addressed,
 
WTC Dust said:
Planes did not destroy the WTC. Something else did. I'm working on that something else. The only reason I ever talk about planes is because other people bring it up. They are laboring under false information, not me, and it's rather tedious to have this constantly brought up.
Click to expand...

If you really believe that, then there is no sense having a rational discussion with you.

The same applies if you're just trolling.

Either way, good luck to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom