• 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.
alienentity said:
That plane is obviously fake. I know this because I have training in an unrelated field, making me uniquely qualified.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with being unqualified. In fact, i've learned we laypeople are superior, above all you dumb brainy smarties , and one day you will beg us for mercy...and we will consider it.
 
A W Smith said:
Can you show us an example of a column of air being dragged behind an aircraft? Oh and while you're chorteling,
http://physics.info/acceleration/

Anything else you are concerned about?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/iphone/#define?term=concern troll
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, been here a while, I know how it works for the likes of you, but that doesn't stop me posting as I please anyway. In this case, it was well worth pointing out that DGM was trying to argue with a truther by posting a youtube video of something barely connected to the point in question (there was a plane in his video, can't argue with that...) Call me an 'irony troll', if it helps you.

As for 'concern troll', the definition you linked says:
"Concern troll:
A phrase of absolutely no meaning, used by bloggers to shut down debate on their sites."

In this case, obviously, subsititute 'some forum posters' for bloggers and 'a site that isn't theirs but which they've convinced themselves it is their righteous duty to 'protect'' for the last two words.

ETA: I just looked at that physics link (even though it could have no bearing on the etymology of 'acceleration' - you do seem to have difficulty following what's actually being discussed sometimes. I wouldn't begin to argue that physicist redefined 'acceleration' for their purposes, I merely point out that from an etymological POV, that's amusing). Anyway, in that linked definition of 'acceleration', second paragraph, first sentence, paranthetical remark, the definition includes: decreasing speed (also called deceleration or retardation)

Now, I'll leave you to it for a while, because I know how vicious this particular sub-forum gets if your dare to criticise ignorance, misinformation and stupidity on both sides.
 
Last edited:
sylvan8798 said:
And that is, quite fantastically, a chunk of the SOUTH wall of WTC 1 with the plane tire embedded in it, showing the tremendous force of the impact. I would like WTC Dust to explain exactly what she thinks this is a photo of and how she thinks it got there.
Click to expand...

This is the photo I like to show to "no planers". The window of opportunity to "plant" a nose wheel of an airplane into that piece of fallen debris is less than one hour.......with potential witnesses all over the place. Not to mention how perfectly imbedded the wheel is in the building structure.

The only wave troofers can explain that is with a hand wave. :rolleyes:
 
He also did not properly explain the smell, but at least he mentioned the smell.
Click to expand...

How do you quantify a smell?

I can understand that you might be able to quantify the chemicals that go into making a particular smell, but not the process of the olfactory nerves responding to them/

Also, I'm not sure if this has been asked, but I feel like I need to ask it: In some places, you refer to your sample as dust, and in others, you call it foam. Which is it? In my experience, those are two different things.
 
I'd like to see some evidence of a hijacking on 9/11.

You got any?

beachnut said:
Darn, we have their DNA, for some of the 19 terrorists, so it is not a story, it is the truth, which you ignore and make up moronic steel turned to dust, delusional nonsense. Why not spread your nonsense to a few truther web sites like pilots for truth, they would love your delusions, they like lies. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/ Why not spread your Pulitzer Prize winning revelations to those who agree with you?

The crews on the planes, reported the "hijacking", a fact, evidence you ignore and prefer your fantasy, your lie, you steel turned to dust delusion. Are you calling the dead crews liars? Why do you make up lies about the dead? Why do you blame people without evidence?

You make up a fantasy, why? Why can't you see the aircraft debris? Why can't you define the weapons which turned steel to dust? How does it turn steel to dust? Why can't you explain how it works?
Click to expand...
 
The first part is correct, and the second part is a misrepresentation.

I'm saying that an airplane can't crash into a steel side of a building WITHOUT DESTROYING ITSELF at that very moment and at that exact spot.

Too many people point to some debris coming out of WTC 2 and satisfy themselves that it was from a plane crash, but it appears nothing like the debris from an airplane crashing into a building.

When that happens in history, the airplane either gets stuck in the side of the building or it falls to the ground.

WildCat said:
So the world's smartest truther thinks boats and plans "drag a wake behind them" and 300,000lb object traveling over 400 mph can't penetrate a skyscraper.

:dl:
Click to expand...
 
Do you have any evidence that hijackings took place?


twinstead said:
It's amazing that somebody can be so outside reality to actually say, "there isn't good evidence that hijackings took place", as if just saying it actually makes it true.
Click to expand...
 
What is your degree in?

Saying I have a degree in biology isn't reflective of my education and experience.

It's like saying I have a high school degree. Yes, I've got a high school degree, and a bachelors in biology, but also a PhD in biomedical science, a postdoctoral fellowship in bioengineering, and an advanced professional certificate in education.

:-) Peer reviewed journal articles? Got 'em. Biology doesn't motivate me like it used to. I only pay the bills with it. What I really do is 9/11 research.

One thing I learned when getting my education credentials is that it's almost impossible to teach anyone anything when they think they already know the answer (even if it's wrong).

It's called a misconception, and they are notoriously difficult to dislodge from brains, once they have set in.

tfk said:
And your erroneous conclusion that the plane did not decelerate is based upon …?



Demonstrating that a degree in biology is relatively useless for answering relatively simple questions in another field (in this case, mechanical engineering).

" … a single beam of that size …"

Meaning that, after all this time, you still haven't a clue how impossibly thin the steel in those columns & trusses really were. Or how wafer thin were the concrete floors.

Sad.



Demonstrating that rampant arrogance can be an insurmountable obstacle to understanding simple engineering principles, even when those principles have been explained in fine detail.

Sadder.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
I'd like to see some evidence of a hijacking on 9/11.

You got any?
Click to expand...

Well, for one, passengers from the plane called and said the plane had been hijacked. Later, DNA from these passengers' remains were found in the wreckage where the planes crashed.

If you reject this evidence, then to be consistent you must reject ALL evidence for ANYTHING. You should doubt that you have actual samples of WTC dust. You should doubt that Judy Wood actually exists. You should doubt that the pot you smoke isn't really just cilantro. You should doubt that anyone that you speak to online is a real person.

If you don't doubt these things and yet you do doubt something that has been confirmed and analyzed six ways from Tuesday, then you should ask yourself why.
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
I'm saying that an airplane can't crash into a steel side of a building WITHOUT DESTROYING ITSELF at that very moment and at that exact spot.
Click to expand...

It can't, and it didn't.

The plane was being destroyed INSIDE the building. It wasn't being destroyed OUTSIDE the building because there was nothing OUTSIDE the building to destroy the plane.

Perhaps you think the back end of the plane should have crumpled into the front end like a collapsing accordian. I'm sure it would have, had it not been travelling much faster than such "crumpling" could travel through the airframe.
 
WTC Dust said:
What is your degree in?

Saying I have a degree in biology isn't reflective of my education and experience.

It's like saying I have a high school degree. Yes, I've got a high school degree, and a bachelors in biology, but also a PhD in biomedical science, a postdoctoral fellowship in bioengineering, and an advanced professional certificate in education.

:-) Peer reviewed journal articles? Got 'em. Biology doesn't motivate me like it used to. I only pay the bills with it. What I really do is 9/11 research.

One thing I learned when getting my education credentials is that it's almost impossible to teach anyone anything when they think they already know the answer (even if it's wrong).

It's called a misconception, and they are notoriously difficult to dislodge from brains, once they have set in.
Click to expand...

I wish I had a dime for every Phd I have come across that thinks that it automatically make them know everything, or makes them smarter than everyone else. In reality, getting a PHd means you are so specialized in such a tiny area of one particular field that you end up knowing just about everything about almost nothing.
 
WTC Dust said:
I'd like to see some evidence of a hijacking on 9/11.

You got any?
Click to expand...

There's plenty of places you could find the evidence. But I guess you wouldn't trust official reports would you? Videos and confessions from Al Quada members either I bet. You choose to ignore evidence, thats not our problem.

In an earlier post you mentioned that tv fakery and "pod" people are wrong, thats the only thing I would agree with you on. But... if the planes were faked doesn't that require media fakery? Confused are you?
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
Too many people point to some debris coming out of WTC 2 and satisfy themselves that it was from a plane crash, but it appears nothing like the debris from an airplane crashing into a building.

When that happens in history, the airplane either gets stuck in the side of the building or it falls to the ground.
Click to expand...

Except when it doesn't.
 
I'm shocked that a Phd could have such foolish ideas. Phds all over the world are groaning as we speak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom