• 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.
Dr. Wood

sts60 said:
It doesn't matter if you have credentials in a relevant field if your claim is ill-defined, unphysical, and flatly contradicts observation, which is the case with poor crazy Ms. Wood. In this thread as well as others, her claims have been shown absurd on all these counts.

If you have credentials in an irrelevant field, and your claims are ill-defined, unphysical, and flatly contradict observation, and furthermore attempt to draw support from somebody else's absurdities, well,... you have this thread. An exercise in Internet narcissism that has exactly the same real-world impact as the ravings of the disheveled guy arguing with empty air near the dumpster behind the 7-11.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, there was that smell, but that smell didn't last very long. Besides, in my career as a biomedical scientist, I have come into contact with dead human beings and recognized their smell immediately for what it was. But there was a different smell. A smell that was not dead people.

The smell I'm talking about lasted for a very long time, months, as did the fume cloud coming from Ground Zero.

tsig said:
That was the burning flesh of the bodies of those who died.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
Yes, there was that smell, but that smell didn't last very long. Besides, in my career as a biomedical scientist, I have come into contact with dead human beings and recognized their smell immediately for what it was. But there was a different smell. A smell that was not dead people.

The smell I'm talking about lasted for a very long time, months, as did the fume cloud coming from Ground Zero.
Click to expand...

The smell didn't emanate from the fumes then ? They were seperate ?
 
"Just" a biologist? Oh, how it hurts to be so misunderstood! ;-)

Sweetheart, a person can get a bachelor's degree and call themselves a biologist, but they would have next to no training in research science.

I'm a research scientist. It says so on my resume. It's not the same thing as a biologist, and actually chemistry is much closer of a description of what I do professionally. I study the chemical processes of life.

And I actually have good experience with fires. Fires are used in the laboratory. Fires accidentally happen in the laboratory. I've put out more than one fire, myself.

And smell is a 100% legitimate research tool, especially if an unknown phenomena includes a strange smell. This smell is commonly written about. I'm not the only one who wondered what the smell was.




Sword_Of_Truth said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
I'm not calling anyone a liar, not even Steven Jones!

This is the nature of a scientific discovery. When someone discovers something (like when I discovered that the WTC was turned into foam), it doesn't mean that other people are liars. It means that new information exists now that leads to an understanding that those other people are wrong.

Being wrong doesn't mean the same thing as being a liar. Wrong people don't always know they are wrong. Before I discovered that the WTC was turned into foam, how could they possibly know?

Nobody discovered it before me, so they are forgiven for making mistakes. They aren't liars.

When you say you saw a plane, I am not calling you a liar. I'm saying you were tricked. You thought you saw a plane, for good reasons. You saw something that looked an awful lot like a plane.

The problem is the object you saw flying through the sky did not behave as an airplane would have if it crashed into the south face of WTC 2. There wasn't debris bouncing back from the south face of WTC 2 at the moment of impact. There wasn't evidence of the wake that follows every airplane in flight. That wake would have seriously disturbed the fumes coming from WTC 1 and the explosion that later came from WTC 2 after the object that appeared to be a plane entered the building.

You're not a liar. You're just mistaken. I know people who are my close friends and associates who think they saw a plane in the sky on 9/11. They aren't liars, either. September Clues calls them liars, but not me.
Click to expand...
No Dusty, you ARE calling people liars. People who saw a REAL plane crash, those of us that saw parts of those planes on the ground. You are calling the airliners liars for saying they lost planes, the people who desperately worked that huge pile of steel and rubble hoping by some miracle that there might be survivors. You are calling the government liars, NIST, FEMA, NY emergency services, the military, the FAA, ATC... Need I go on? It's you who is "mistaken" although a better word would be ignorant.

There was debris bouncing back, members of this forum have shown this to you and you just shut your eyes and ignore it. As for the wake/drag arguement, you don't understand what it means. You don't understand drag or wake turbulence at all, or you're just changing physics laws to fuel your delusions.

I gave you examples of wake turbulence, look them up Dusty.

Read about the American Airlines crash in Queens.
Read up on wake turbulence in high speed motor racing.
Look at the wake of a boat, it does not follow the boat at all. The water turbulence stays where it is, the motion of the boat creates a long trail of displaced water which dissipates as it moves away.
 
Last edited:
Those strange smelling "fires" lasted for months, despite heavy rain, cold weather and constant fire fighting efforts.

And, again, you're the one who is talking about planes, not me.

Dash80 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
The wake would have been large enough to be seen by its disturbance of the fume cloud coming from WTC 1.
Click to expand...
Can't you suggest some dimensions in terms of diameter, length, shape, etc? Is it shaped in cross section like a huge cylinder? a cone? a plane? Does it get broader farther away from the plane?
 
I've smelled dead bodies before. That wasn't it.

sylvan8798 said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
You are cordially invited to begin ignoring me.

:-)

sts60 said:
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.



Quite. As I pointed out, this entire thread amounts to an exercise in vanity, incompetence, and irrelevance.
Click to expand...
 
The smell was unlike anything I've ever smelled before, and it could be smelled as far as a mile or so away (FOR MONTHS).

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...
 
WTC Dust said:
Those strange smelling "fires" lasted for months, despite heavy rain, cold weather and constant fire fighting efforts.

And, again, you're the one who is talking about planes, not me.
Click to expand...
Oh change the record Dusty, please.

You didn't answer my question. WHAT. ABOUT. THE. PASSENGERS?
 
Get it right: I'm a "No Hijacker". Very different from a No Planer.
Until much better evidence of hijackings is presented, I do not acknowledge that they occurred on 9/11.

The dust is what I've focused on for these ten years now. Not the airplanes. I am much less interested in how they tricked people into believing the 19-Arab-Conspiracy than what actually happened.

No type of plane crash can produce the kind of material that I recovered from near Ground Zero. No type of explosive device that I've ever seen described can do what was done, either.

That leaves Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Henry-Couannier as the only two other PhD level 9/11 researchers who are talking sense about it. Both of them insist on a cool process very different from an explosive reaction. Both of them could actually be correct, because their results do not contradict each other and do not contradict my findings, either.



Dash80 said:
I'm saying planes hit the towers because THEY DID! I didn't see I heard the boom and I saw aircraft parts, I saw the second one hit.

You are a no-planer and a poor researcher, you simply ignore evidence because it doesn't fit your nutty theory. To be honest I don't understand why it's so important to you that planes did not crash, wouldn't it make more sense for these weapons of yours to be used in tandem with plane crashes? Tell me, was it your "dust research" that came first or your ridiculous assertion of no planes?
Click to expand...
 
You are invited to ignore me.

By the way, Dr. Henry-Couannier investigated those red chips and found them to be iron oxide.

How did iron oxide chips come into being? They might have been part of a paint job, but that seems a stretch.

Sunstealer said:
I'm now laughing at the debunkers on this thread more than I'm laughing at dusty. Dusty has an excuse - she's a sandwich short of a picnic, the rest of you... well um what's your excuse? Some crazy person writing the most unbelievable nonsense on the internet must, at all costs, be refuted? No matter what anyone says it isn't going to make any difference whatsoever to Tracy Blevins. Dusty craves attention more than anything in the world. It's like a dog that would rather have a severe beating from it's master than no attention whatsoever. Anyone responding to it is feeding that need.

For everyone's sake just let the thread die, it serves no purpose. Surely one can only stare at the car crash, guts and all, for so long.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
Get it right: I'm a "No Hijacker". Very different from a No Planer.
Until much better evidence of hijackings is presented, I do not acknowledge that they occurred on 9/11.

The dust is what I've focused on for these ten years now. Not the airplanes. I am much less interested in how they tricked people into believing the 19-Arab-Conspiracy than what actually happened.

No type of plane crash can produce the kind of material that I recovered from near Ground Zero. No type of explosive device that I've ever seen described can do what was done, either.

That leaves Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Henry-Couannier as the only two other PhD level 9/11 researchers who are talking sense about it. Both of them insist on a cool process very different from an explosive reaction. Both of them could actually be correct, because their results do not contradict each other and do not contradict my findings, either.
Click to expand...
You haven't found a damn thing, your theories only make sense to someone with too many loose screws... Like Judy.

These is ample evidence of hijackers and plane crashes. You ignore it because you can't make any of it fit your delusions. NOW PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS concerning 2 airlines confirming the loss of their aircraft and 250+ passengers!
 
Do you know very much about biochemistry?
If not, how do you think it is possible to frustrate me in my own field?
Pardon me if I think you a bit impudent, but you may be right.

Go ahead. Try and frustrate me in matters related to biochemistry. Go!


TheRedWorm said:
I just wanted to try a different debate tactic; to relate what she is doing with something that might frustrate her, in her own field.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom