• 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.
Show me one item that you consider rock solid proof of hijackings on 9/11,
Click to expand...


wtc12.jpg


There you go.
 
You might not understand that it is not my goal to prove or disprove Dr. Judy Wood or anyone else.

I have disproved airplane crashes and thermite, but that was incidental to my work. I've been trying to discover what destroyed the World Trade Center.

The "baseline" as you say it are my samples. If Judy comes up with a way to test the beam theory, I'll compare what she is able to produce with my samples. Judy Wood, as excellent a human being as she is, is not the focus of my work.

DGM said:
So you're going ahead with no baseline? How will it "test her theory" if you don't know what kind of product her theory would produce?
Click to expand...
 
I'll give you one last chance and 15 minutes to apologize, or I will ignore you. I put dtugg on ignore a few months ago, and it makes reading the responses to this thread much more enjoyable.

So ignore or not? Your choice. I'll check back after 1PM EST.

NoahFence said:
LOL
Click to expand...
 
...It doesn't actually think I care about being ignored, does it?

Besides, if it puts me on ignore, that proves I win, doesn't it? I mean, in trutherville?
 
WTC Dust said:
I don't want a thousand items. I want one. Show me one item that you consider rock solid proof of hijackings on 9/11, and we can talk about it.

I've been studying 9/11 for ten years now. I've already studied the official story. You might have something I have seen, though, so I'm waiting.
Click to expand...

So not only have you not googled it yourself, you have not clicked on any link in the "let me google it for you"?

Odd.

Please click the link in my earlier post.

When you do so, you will be taken to a the results of a google search of "FAA Air Traffic Control audio from ATC Cleveland Center of the hijacking of UA 93."

You should then click the very top result.

You should then listen to it.

I'll wait.

You'll find that I can be very patient.

/I do not link directly to that here.
 
WTC Dust said:
You might not understand that it is not my goal to prove or disprove Dr. Judy Wood or anyone else.

I have disproved airplane crashes and thermite, but that was incidental to my work. I've been trying to discover what destroyed the World Trade Center.

The "baseline" as you say it are my samples. If Judy comes up with a way to test the beam theory, I'll compare what she is able to produce with my samples. Judy Wood, as excellent a human being as she is, is not the focus of my work.
Click to expand...




I won't even start with your claim of "I have disproved airplane crashes and thermite".

I will however suggest you save your money until you figure out what you're testing for.

BTW: One of my close friends was at Battery park that morning and lost his wife in the south tower. Yes, he saw it happen.


:(
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
It's not bounce-back from any sort of plane impact. It doesn't happen at the moment when the object appears to touch the south face of WTC 2. It begins later.

So it doesn't qualify as bounce-back from a plane crash. It's something, just not plane debris.
Click to expand...
It's something, just not airplane debris eh?

So you do acknowkledge that something hit the towers?
 
WTC Dust said:
You aren't listening. My trip to Europe? I talked to scientists in their labs. Yes, I am collaborating with physical scientists who are very interested in additional analysis of my samples.

So there you go.

Any other sniggling doubts you have?

P.S. Why do you believe the 19-Arab Conspiracy theory so strongly?
Click to expand...
You aren't listening.

You claim to be doing this for people affected by the WTC attacks yet you have nothing other than your visual observations to date.

No analysis showing what the material is, no independant analysis to confirm your findings. If I truly believed what you allegedly believe I'd have done PMI (positive material identification) at the very least by now.

But you've chosen to come to JREF and argue with sceptics instead.

I believe the 19 Arabs theory because there's actually evidence for it....and BTW, even if you were correct in your assessment that this dust consisted of a metallic foam and that the towers were reduced to dust (which you're obviously not) it still wouldn't disprove the "19 Arabs theory".
 
ApolloGnomon doesn't post in this thread (probably to his credit) but I want to quote a post of his in another thread yesterday that is very relevant here:


Please review the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoE8Uz2ia3M

The above link is a video of "all known footage of 2nd plane impact." There are over 20 different shots from all possible angles, at distances ranging from just under the building less than a block away to over 5 miles out. Most of these clips were taken by random citizens with random video cameras. Watch them carefully. They match. There are no inconsistencies from one to another.

If "they" used video trickery to generate fake planes, then please explain how random New Yorkers were able to capture images that exactly match the trajectory of:
  • the airplane
  • the debris ejecta,
  • the fuel bolus from the center fuel tanks (google " wtc pinocchio's nose " if you are unfamiliar with the contents of your own contention) which then burst into flame on exit creating
  • a fireball consistent in all video clips which left "no hole" in the outer curtain wall, but did leave a blackened circle of wall with the windows blown out an the aluminum cladding blown off.
  • the right - side jet engine exiting the building near the corner and leaving a spiralling trail of smoke before landing at the intersection of Church and Murray streets
  • the chunk of fuselage that was later found on a building top a couple blocks away

Airplanes crashing into buildings present an internally and externally consistent narrative; no-planes creates any number of inconsistencies with existing technology and observable reality.
Click to expand...

By the way, the magnet didn't dance, it swayed because you waved currents of air at it with your "dust"--disturbing it with the dust's wake. :D
 
twinstead said:
Real skeptics realize that the body of evidence to support the commonly-held narrative of 9-11 is huge, therefore it must be accepted, in lieu of compelling evidence to the contrary, as the leading theory.

Real skeptics don't believe a word of somebody on an internet forum claiming to have evidence that something other than fires and damage brought down the towers, any more than they believe somebody claiming to be a time traveler warning me of an economic collapse in 2050.
Click to expand...
Hey, I'm willing to change my mind, if conspiracy theorists can come up with something that actually stands up to scrutiny.
 
DGM said:
I won't even start with your claim of "I have disproved airplane crashes and thermite".

I will however suggest you save your money until you figure out what you're testing for.

BTW: One of my close friends was at Battery park that morning and lost his wife in the south tower. Yes, he saw it happen.


:(
Click to expand...
Sad.

My wife was at a trade show in Manhatten and I was at a gas plant in northern Alberta when it happened. It took me serveral hours to find out she (and our first born who she was pregnant with) was still alive.

I truly feel for your friend.:(
 
WTC Dust said:
Dr. Henry-Couannier is interested in repeating his studies using my samples.
Eh. It's fine. I'll share some with him. But his technique doesn't get to the meat of the matter. He's mostly interested in disproving thermite, which is fine, but which has already been done.

I've got higher goals for my samples.
Click to expand...
Then why are you collaborating with a crackpot like Henry-Couannier?

Do you think you and Henry are going to get your "science" published in a real science/engineering journal?
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
You might not understand that it is not my goal to prove or disprove Dr. Judy Wood or anyone else.

I have disproved airplane crashes and thermite, but that was incidental to my work. I've been trying to discover what destroyed the World Trade Center.

The "baseline" as you say it are my samples. If Judy comes up with a way to test the beam theory, I'll compare what she is able to produce with my samples. Judy Wood, as excellent a human being as she is, is not the focus of my work.
Click to expand...

Judy Wood is a raving nutcase. Tell the truth,you killed the real professor and stole her identity. Nothing you have posted leads me to believe that you know the first thing about science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom