• 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:
Occam's razor is why I'm here.

Remember that strange fire I kept smelling day after day for many months?
Well, during those months, it was quite rainy and cold, and the fire fighters never stopped working to stop the fuming. I saw them. They were working constantly. And the strange fire refused to go out.

And the smell. The theory that qualifies under Occam's razor must account for this strange, awful, unique smell. Occam's razor doesn't say the simplest explanation is the likeliest one. It says that the simplest explanation THAT EXPLAINS ALL THE DATA is the likeliest one. If your theory doesn't account for my primary observations of the aftermath, it's the wrong theory, no matter how simple it is.
Click to expand...

That was the burning flesh of the bodies of those who died.
 
WTC Dust said:
Remember that strange fire I kept smelling day after day for many months?
Well, during those months, it was quite rainy and cold, and the fire fighters never stopped working to stop the fuming. I saw them. They were working constantly. And the strange fire refused to go out.

And the smell. The theory that qualifies under Occam's razor must account for this strange, awful, unique smell.
Click to expand...

The problem here is two-fold.

First, you're just a biologist. You are neither a firefighter, fire investigator nor rescue worker nor anyone who might regularly come in contact with building fires or their aftermath. You are neither an experienced, nor a trained observer of fires. Here you had three of the largest and most destructive office building fires in history. And after they caused the destruction of the buildings they afflicted, the fires continued to burn in a manner that has more in common with an underground coal seem fire than with conventional structural fires.

You were observing things that you weren't accustomed to seeing. You were observing things being burned that you have likely never seen burned before in a type of fire that you likely have never observed.

Secondly, you never made any scientifically useful observations. Your nose is not a scientific instrument. "I smell something strange" is not a useful observation. You made no attempt to quantify exactly wheat appeared to be out of place. You made no measurements and took no samples for analysis.

Scientifically speaking, your observations are useless. Your conclusions are retarded and asinine.
 
So you have buildings full of wood, drywall, electrical wiring, plastics, 30 years worth of dust, concrete pieces, and some 2700 decomposing bodies, which burns for weeks to produce a rather nasty smell which you had never encountered prior to that? So what? How this gets you to unseen dust/foam beam weapons remains a mystery. Perhaps you inhaled a bit too much of it?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
The problem here is two-fold....
Click to expand...
The term for which you're looking is "manifold".

While your observations are correct, there are more fundamental problems, starting with the fact that the very premise (towers turned to dust) is completely and demonstrably wrong; the vast majority of the steel from WTC 1 and 2 was recovered. So, anything that follows is simply pointless. It's like a "theory" explaining how the world is flat. The world is observed not to be flat; there's no point to any elaboration as to how it supposedly got that way.

The end of the idea (an alleged mechanism) is in no better shape than the beginning. Here, the OP, who has pretended to authority in firefighting, materials engineering, forensics, etc. - all bogus - suddenly defers to her fellow loon-with-a-degree. The problem, as already pointed out, is that poor crazy Ms. Wood can't even really define her own claim, although it proceeds from the same false premise (steel vaporized or turned to dust). Worse, as pointed out in the thread linked above, the claim (such as it is) can readily be seen to be utterly unphysical, and has been quantitatively demonstrated as such by multiple posters here.

The less said about the cargo-cult "science" in between, the better. It's a falseshood linked to a fantasy by a vapor trail of egotism.

Sword_Of_Truth said:
Scientifically speaking, your observations are useless. Your conclusions are retarded and asinine.
Click to expand...

Quite. As I pointed out, this entire thread amounts to an exercise in vanity, incompetence, and irrelevance.
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
Occam's razor is why I'm here.

Remember that strange fire I kept smelling day after day for many months?
Well, during those months, it was quite rainy and cold, and the fire fighters never stopped working to stop the fuming. I saw them. They were working constantly. And the strange fire refused to go out.

And the smell. The theory that qualifies under Occam's razor must account for this strange, awful, unique smell.

Occam's razor doesn't say the simplest explanation is the likeliest one. It says that the simplest explanation THAT EXPLAINS ALL THE DATA is the likeliest one. If your theory doesn't account for my primary observations of the aftermath, it's the wrong theory, no matter how simple it is.
Click to expand...

Yes stubborn fires burned for many weeks, what is your point? Lots of things burn for a long time despite water being used on them... Mines, forest fires, things like that. The strange smell was 2 collapsed burning skyscrapers full of chemicals, jet fuel residue, metal, wiring, plastics, fabrics and body parts. Of course such a smell would be strange, it's not a cocktail people are likely to come across normally. Why does it have anything to do with your so-called beam weapons? Do they stink or something?

Hmm you know something, the official account of 9/11 EXPLAINS ALL THE DATA. I really don't like your "How DARE you disagree with me, my nutjob theories are right and you're wrong" attitude. Your "observations" are ridiculous and only you and a few other crackpots believe the crap you're peddling. Tell me, does your ego require it's own zip code?

One more thing Dusty, care to explain what happened to the 250+ people on the 4 planes you claim didn't crash? Come on, you're the "researcher" you tell us.
 
WTC Dust said:
Occam's razor is why I'm here.

Remember that strange fire I kept smelling day after day for many months?
Well, during those months, it was quite rainy and cold, and the fire fighters never stopped working to stop the fuming. I saw them. They were working constantly. And the strange fire refused to go out.

And the smell. The theory that qualifies under Occam's razor must account for this strange, awful, unique smell.

Occam's razor doesn't say the simplest explanation is the likeliest one. It says that the simplest explanation THAT EXPLAINS ALL THE DATA is the likeliest one. If your theory doesn't account for my primary observations of the aftermath, it's the wrong theory, no matter how simple it is.
Click to expand...

I think you once said that the smell hurt your nose. Was that because it was pungent ? Or how else would you characterise it ? And how far away from the WTC could it still be smelt as far as you know ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I think you once said that the smell hurt your nose. Was that because it was pungent ? Or how else would you characterise it ? And how far away from the WTC could it still be smelt as far as you know ?
Click to expand...
When I chop onions it makes my nose burn, does that mean I use beam weapons on them? :eek:
 
Let's see:

Observation--
  • Strange smell

Possibilities--
  • The mixture of fumes of a massive variety of non-everyday things burning
  • The residual smell of a steel-foamifying beam weapon

Applying Occam's razor, it's clearly the latter. :rolleyes:
 
It's a foam that is very dusty. The dust is the loose particles. The foam is made of the same material as the dust, it's just a solid with air pockets.

starri said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Those are stories. Any evidence better than stories?

Like, say, the physical evidence I have that proves planes didn't destroy the WTC? Physical evidence is king. Hearsay is crap evidence. Yeah, it's evidence, but it's not great evidence.

aggle-rithm said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Completely untrue about me. I have said several times that I don't know the answers to all of your questions.

My point is that I do know some things, and those things go counter to what you think you know.

In addition to being a trained scientist years before 9/11, I actually lived really close by to the disaster, and observed it first hand.

If anyone had explained the hundred days of fumes properly, you'd never had heard from me, but they didn't.

Researching 9/11 has not been a bucket of joy for me, although I am proud of my successes. Who searches for something for 8 years and finally finds it? ME!! :-)

Animal said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom