• 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:
You have to account for the lack of high heat, and nukes do not satisfy the condition. Also, speaking of "the" nuke is bringing it from the theoretical to the actual in your tone, which I don't like. You might not be rude, but you might be some kind of deliberate idiot. Anybody that doesn't recognize the correct answer when it is given to them is suspect in my book, so I'll be watching you.

There is no reason for you to consider nukes or any other high heat process. So one of the big "deliberate idiot" flags will be if you continue to do so.
Click to expand...
Speechless. Just speechless. :boggled:

Find a mirror, WTC Dust.
 
WTC Dust said:
But you have all kinds of small items inside the plane like luggage and things that would not be obliterated into shreds if a plane merely crashed into the ground.
Click to expand...
And in the pentagon they found bodies still strapped in seats. Have you LOOKED at the photos? I dare you to go tell the people who had to retrieve them that they were not actually bodies. In fact, I'm sure I could get up a collection to pay for us all to take a little trip there to help you do that.
 
WTC Dust said:
You have to account for the lack of high heat, and nukes do not satisfy the condition. Also, speaking of "the" nuke is bringing it from the theoritical to the actual in your tone, which I don't like. You might not be rude, but you might be some kind of deliberate idiot. Anybody that doesn't recognize the correct answer when it is given to them is suspect in my book, so I'll be watching you.

There is no reason for you to consider nukes or any other high heat process. So one of the big "deliberate idiot" flags will be if you continue to do so.
Click to expand...

Ouch!

But BS did such a good job of sucking up!:rolleyes::D
 
A W Smith said:
Bald assertion, cite it as I have, Neither a plane nor a boat "drag" air or water behind it.
Click to expand...
She's actually caling the temporary vacuum formed after a plane or boat passes as "dragging air/water behind it" because those substances rush in to fill the vacuum.

It's astonishing that a "PhD research scientist" makes such an egregious and foolish error.
 
WildCat said:
She's actually caling the temporary vacuum formed after a plane or boat passes as "dragging air/water behind it" because those substances rush in to fill the vacuum.

It's astonishing that a "PhD research scientist" makes such an egregious and foolish error.
Click to expand...

We may be at a point here where we can dismiss the PhD claim as well.
 
Her PhD is in some biological science. Her physics education, on the other hand, seems to be sadly lacking.

I'm a layman and even I can tell that much.
 
Yeah, Dusty really does have a PhD in pharmacology or something. It means nothing. Judy Wood has an engineering doctorate (rather than something totally unrelated to the subject) and it doesn't prevent her from making up all sorts completely insane stuff.
 
Dr, Blevins,
Almost all theories relating to the destruction of the WTC depend on there being high heat in the rubble pile. Yours is the only theory that I know of that relies on the low or possibly no heat variant.

So it would be very much in your interest for you to make a strong case for the lack of enormous amounts of heat in the pile for approximately 100 days.

If you can do this then yours is the only case in town...
 
Last edited:
Let's assume for the moment that there is some sort of weapon out there that is capable of causing destruction on the level of the WTC towers (ignoring the whole "turned to dust" thing, because that's just ludicrous in the extreme), as Judy Wood has posited. If that is the case, I have a few issues that I'd like to point out.

Number one: Right now, there is no indication (other than the putative cause of the collapse of the towers) that any such weapon has ever been used. Speaking from a tactical perspective, the notion that some entity (governmental or private) would possess such a weapon and would only use it once is sheer stupidity. You have a weapon capable of destroying 110 story buildings practically down to the ground; why only use it once? Assuming it was ours; (and taking into account the idea that we would have had to conceal the fact that we used it ourselves originally, possibly by seeding a story that we had been developing a similar weapon in secret and were now unveiling it in response to the attacks) we could have just used it on Saddam's palace, or any location we were sure a member of the Taliban or Al Qaeda was holed up and leveled the building. We'd very quickly intimidate our enemies into surrendering, I can tell you that. Heck, if we were unscrupulous enough, we'd parlay it into becoming rulers of the entire world (which the CTers would have us believe is the ultimate goal of the shadowy elite anyway) simply by threatening to use it on anyone who opposed us.

If it belonged to our enemies, they wouldn't stop at using it once either. They'd quickly use it on other buildings and key targets (like oh, say, our military bases and armaments, which are pretty easy to locate using something as simple as Google Earth), and get US to surrender to THEM, and we would now be living under some other country's governance. There's a reason they say "absolute power corrupts absolutely", because I can just about guarantee you that if any country in the developed world suddenly got their hands on such technology, we'd quickly become a one world government. Governments are, by their very nature, inclined to some unscrupulousness, and while they'd try to couch it at first as "protecting the homeland and the people", eventually the blinders would come off. And if it were owned by private enterprise, you'd have that issue even more; private enterprises are even more unscrupulous, and instead of one country ruling the world, we'd suddenly have one company ruling the world.

Number two: So, tactically it's a wash; what about other considerations? For instance; what powers this weapon? Is it a renewable resource? Is it easily replicated? Where is it located? Only reasonable place is in space, but the likelihood of our enemies (or us, if it belongs to our enemies) discovering which platform is the culprit before it can be positioned to take out other targets is pretty high, considering that most of the developed nations in the world have the capability to extrapolate locations using simple navigation techniques; they can then use their own military capabilities to attack it, since it's pretty difficult to protect something if it's in space. If it's located in a fixed location on land, how is it possible to target other areas? You don't build a weapon like that for the sole purpose of taking out one target; you build it to take out multiple targets (see the tactics discussion above). If it's on a ship, how have we/other countries not spotted it by now, and again, why hasn't it been used to take out other targets? And back to the power considerations; has anyone even tried to figure out the energy usage on such a weapon? If a weapon is so prohibitively costly to use, energy-wise, what sane individual is going to build it? Again, the whole purpose of building such a weapon is to USE the damned thing; not just once, but multiple times. The fact that this is the only instance where it could even be posited that such a weapon was used illustrates my point.

And lastly, lets not forget that all of Judy Wood's work was theoretical at best back in 2001; it's now 2011, a full TEN YEARS after 9/11 (which is an eon in terms of technology improvements), and we have yet to see this weapon or anything remotely similar even proposed by SANE scientists. The closest we've come, so far as I'm aware, is the development of EMP weaponry, which doesn't exactly cause buildings to collapse. Laser technology is coming along, but again; doesn't cause buildings to collapse.

So, what I would like to know is; how on God's green earth can ANYONE think this idea is even remotely possible when all the evidence (that was collected TEN YEARS AGO, not TWO YEARS AGO) does not show anything like it happening? And DOES show that four planes were hijacked (evidence to support this includes airplane pieces discovered at all four locations, as well as DNA evidence of the passengers, all the credit card records showing tickets bought, video evidence of the hijackers, and the eyewitness testimony of several thousand people who were physically present at the time at the various locations) and flown into three buildings, while the fourth crashed into a field? The only conclusion I can reach is that the people who honestly believe this are people prone to delusions and are extremely suggestible, and are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous people who have no qualms about making a quick buck off of them. This is what logic and deduction tells me; no need for a PhD even. I find it sad to watch someone who, at least at one point in her life, was capable of the intelligence needed to get such an advanced degree apparently spiral downward further into delusions completely unsupported by current science, and I am washing my hands of the entire issue. I will not post in this thread again; I have no wish to further exacerbate someone's apparent mental illness by encouraging discussion of utterly ludicrous theories, and I strongly suggest that everyone else currently posting in this thread do the same. We are not helping Dusty by catering to her need for attention; the sort of help she needs, most of us are incapable of supplying, and I for one will not pretend to think I can convince her that her ideas are insane. Dusty, the last thing I will say to you is this: I strongly suggest you seek professional help. You are clearly intelligent (the marijuana use and crazy theories aside), and I can find nothing but pity in my heart for your apparent downward spiral. I truly hope you can stop yourself before you spiral out of control. Take care.
 
Sabrina said:
Let's assume for the moment that there is some sort of weapon out there that is capable of causing destruction on the level of the WTC towers (ignoring the whole "turned to dust" thing, because that's just ludicrous in the extreme), as Judy Wood has posited. If that is the case, I have a few issues that I'd like to point out.

Number one: Right now, there is no indication (other than the putative cause of the collapse of the towers) that any such weapon has ever been used. Speaking from a tactical perspective, the notion that some entity (governmental or private) would possess such a weapon and would only use it once is sheer stupidity. You have a weapon capable of destroying 110 story buildings practically down to the ground; why only use it once? Assuming it was ours; (and taking into account the idea that we would have had to conceal the fact that we used it ourselves originally, possibly by seeding a story that we had been developing a similar weapon in secret and were now unveiling it in response to the attacks) we could have just used it on Saddam's palace, or any location we were sure a member of the Taliban or Al Qaeda was holed up and leveled the building. We'd very quickly intimidate our enemies into surrendering, I can tell you that. Heck, if we were unscrupulous enough, we'd parlay it into becoming rulers of the entire world (which the CTers would have us believe is the ultimate goal of the shadowy elite anyway) simply by threatening to use it on anyone who opposed us.

If it belonged to our enemies, they wouldn't stop at using it once either. They'd quickly use it on other buildings and key targets (like oh, say, our military bases and armaments, which are pretty easy to locate using something as simple as Google Earth), and get US to surrender to THEM, and we would now be living under some other country's governance. There's a reason they say "absolute power corrupts absolutely", because I can just about guarantee you that if any country in the developed world suddenly got their hands on such technology, we'd quickly become a one world government. Governments are, by their very nature, inclined to some unscrupulousness, and while they'd try to couch it at first as "protecting the homeland and the people", eventually the blinders would come off. And if it were owned by private enterprise, you'd have that issue even more; private enterprises are even more unscrupulous, and instead of one country ruling the world, we'd suddenly have one company ruling the world.

Number two: So, tactically it's a wash; what about other considerations? For instance; what powers this weapon? Is it a renewable resource? Is it easily replicated? Where is it located? Only reasonable place is in space, but the likelihood of our enemies (or us, if it belongs to our enemies) discovering which platform is the culprit before it can be positioned to take out other targets is pretty high, considering that most of the developed nations in the world have the capability to extrapolate locations using simple navigation techniques; they can then use their own military capabilities to attack it, since it's pretty difficult to protect something if it's in space. If it's located in a fixed location on land, how is it possible to target other areas? You don't build a weapon like that for the sole purpose of taking out one target; you build it to take out multiple targets (see the tactics discussion above). If it's on a ship, how have we/other countries not spotted it by now, and again, why hasn't it been used to take out other targets? And back to the power considerations; has anyone even tried to figure out the energy usage on such a weapon? If a weapon is so prohibitively costly to use, energy-wise, what sane individual is going to build it? Again, the whole purpose of building such a weapon is to USE the damned thing; not just once, but multiple times. The fact that this is the only instance where it could even be posited that such a weapon was used illustrates my point.

And lastly, lets not forget that all of Judy Wood's work was theoretical at best back in 2001; it's now 2011, a full TEN YEARS after 9/11 (which is an eon in terms of technology improvements), and we have yet to see this weapon or anything remotely similar even proposed by SANE scientists. The closest we've come, so far as I'm aware, is the development of EMP weaponry, which doesn't exactly cause buildings to collapse. Laser technology is coming along, but again; doesn't cause buildings to collapse.

So, what I would like to know is; how on God's green earth can ANYONE think this idea is even remotely possible when all the evidence (that was collected TEN YEARS AGO, not TWO YEARS AGO) does not show anything like it happening? And DOES show that four planes were hijacked (evidence to support this includes airplane pieces discovered at all four locations, as well as DNA evidence of the passengers, all the credit card records showing tickets bought, video evidence of the hijackers, and the eyewitness testimony of several thousand people who were physically present at the time at the various locations) and flown into three buildings, while the fourth crashed into a field? The only conclusion I can reach is that the people who honestly believe this are people prone to delusions and are extremely suggestible, and are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous people who have no qualms about making a quick buck off of them. This is what logic and deduction tells me; no need for a PhD even. I find it sad to watch someone who, at least at one point in her life, was capable of the intelligence needed to get such an advanced degree apparently spiral downward further into delusions completely unsupported by current science, and I am washing my hands of the entire issue. I will not post in this thread again; I have no wish to further exacerbate someone's apparent mental illness by encouraging discussion of utterly ludicrous theories, and I strongly suggest that everyone else currently posting in this thread do the same. We are not helping Dusty by catering to her need for attention; the sort of help she needs, most of us are incapable of supplying, and I for one will not pretend to think I can convince her that her ideas are insane. Dusty, the last thing I will say to you is this: I strongly suggest you seek professional help. You are clearly intelligent (the marijuana use and crazy theories aside), and I can find nothing but pity in my heart for your apparent downward spiral. I truly hope you can stop yourself before you spiral out of control. Take care.
Click to expand...

Sabrina, I may have just fallen in love.
 
Sabrina said:
I will not post in this thread again; I have no wish to further exacerbate someone's apparent mental illness by encouraging discussion of utterly ludicrous theories, and I strongly suggest that everyone else currently posting in this thread do the same. We are not helping Dusty by catering to her need for attention; the sort of help she needs, most of us are incapable of supplying, and I for one will not pretend to think I can convince her that her ideas are insane. Dusty, the last thing I will say to you is this: I strongly suggest you seek professional help. You are clearly intelligent (the marijuana use and crazy theories aside), and I can find nothing but pity in my heart for your apparent downward spiral. I truly hope you can stop yourself before you spiral out of control. Take care.
Click to expand...
I am done with this kook too. We've spent hundreds of pages giving this delusional woman the attention she obviously craves. She is offensive, ignorant and clearly has a few loose wires. My patience with Dusty has run out, I don't want to get myself banned for losing my temper and lashing out with an angry rant at her.
 
Craig4 said:
Might I suggest an Ignore pact?
Click to expand...
I think it's for the best, yes. I think this whole thread should be moved to AAH and WTC DUST ignored by as many of us as possible. Let her take her delusions elsewhere, I am done feeding this attention greedy troll.
 
Craig4 said:
Might I suggest an Ignore pact?
Click to expand...

Might I suggest you ignore who you want to ignore, and other people do the same? Where does the 'pact' come into it?

Dash80 said:
I am done with this kook too. We've spent hundreds of pages giving this delusional woman the attention she obviously craves. She is offensive, ignorant and clearly has a few loose wires. My patience with Dusty has run out, I don't want to get myself banned for losing my temper and lashing out with an angry rant at her.
Click to expand...

You can get banned for "She is offensive, ignorant and clearly has a few loose wires" too, if you keep it up, even if you swear it isn't an 'angry rant'. You'll probably get away with in it this subforum though.

Wouldn't it have been nice if everyone just shut up after Sabrina's eloquent summary? djlunacee hasn't fallen in love, it's the more selfish lust. Selfless love would have listened to this line:

Sabrina said:
I have no wish to further exacerbate someone's apparent mental illness by encouraging discussion of utterly ludicrous theories, and I strongly suggest that everyone else currently posting in this thread do the same.
Click to expand...

There's your pact, Craig.
 
jiggeryqua said:
Might I suggest you ignore who you want to ignore, and other people do the same? Where does the 'pact' come into it?



You can get banned for "She is offensive, ignorant and clearly has a few loose wires" too, if you keep it up, even if you swear it isn't an 'angry rant'. You'll probably get away with in it this subforum though.

Wouldn't it have been nice if everyone just shut up after Sabrina's eloquent summary? djlunacee hasn't fallen in love, it's the more selfish lust. Selfless love would have listened to this line:



There's your pact, Craig.
Click to expand...

No one is twisting your arm. Feel free to rant till your heart is content.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom