Merged The Origin of Two Different Colors of WTC Dust

WTC Dust said:
I have more WTC dust than I can carry at one time. I have not weighed it. I'm pretty strong, though, so it's in excess of 50 kg. Stuff is denser than you can believe, and very heavy.
Click to expand...

What's the general size of the two color lump in your post 283?

And I know you've been chided for having no dimensional references in your pics. I hope you'll keep it in mind for future images.
 
Jim_MDP said:
Is that what that is? Oops.
Click to expand...

That's what "they" want you to think it is. All the construction workers knew they kept running into all this foam/dust, "they" have brainwashed them all to stay silent.

Thank god we have Dr. Dust to figure out the shocking truth!
 
phunk said:
Uh, that's not dust, that's bedrock.
Click to expand...
She has been told that numerous times before when she produced the same photo on another thread last year.

She simply does not accept other peoples correct explanations and like all truthers simply regurgitate the same crap. See the nonsense about "fuming dust" at the memorial service when it has been explained at least 3 times it's simply dust whipped up by wind. Even the photo she uses has a caption stating the wind whipped up dust.

It's an utterly pointless exercise engaging with her. How can you have a conversation with someone who doesn't understand what the word "foam" actually means? It's completely the wrong word to use to describe what is seen in the pictures.
 
Sunstealer said:
She has been told that numerous times before when she produced the same photo on another thread last year.

She simply does not accept other peoples correct explanations and like all truthers simply regurgitate the same crap. See the nonsense about "fuming dust" at the memorial service when it has been explained at least 3 times it's simply dust whipped up by wind. Even the photo she uses has a caption stating the wind whipped up dust.

It's an utterly pointless exercise engaging with her. How can you have a conversation with someone who doesn't understand what the word "foam" actually means? It's completely the wrong word to use to describe what is seen in the pictures.
Click to expand...

It's the same with her claim that the smoke in photos of the burning towers is dark steel dust/fumes/foam. Doesn't matter how many people correct her, she continues to repeat it.

I've given up trying, it's like shouting at a brick.
 
WTC Dust said:
I don't study the impact site of any planes. I study the WTC dust. OTHER PEOPLE keep mentioning airplanes, so I've become familiar with what they say and have a response to them. But planes aren't my thing.
Click to expand...

What could the dust tell you about the impact of the planes?
 
Skibum said:
I'm agreeing with you. There most likely is DNA in your dust. Only there is far more than you probably would expect to find and from far more people than just the victims.
Click to expand...

I find it amazing how you could make such quantitative statements about the DNA.

I'm making a qualitative statement. Is there DNA in the light dust? Yes. Is there DNA in the dark dust? No.

If you look at my avatar, this is the moment when a large amount of the light dust began to appear (even though you could see something like light dust when the WTC was first zapped at 9:03AM).
 
Jim_MDP said:
What's the general size of the two color lump in your post 283?

And I know you've been chided for having no dimensional references in your pics. I hope you'll keep it in mind for future images.
Click to expand...

Remember that decision I told you that I made a long time ago? I'm presenting 9/11 to dunderheads, not to a scientific audience, until such time as a scientific audience exists. Every bit of notation you put on an image takes away meaning, when the audience is naive. Labeling all that up is not going to do a better job at explaining everything, at least in my opinion.

This is not a peer reviewed work.
 
WTC Dust said:
No, this isn't off topic. It's gobsmacking, but it's on topic.
Click to expand...

Yes it is Doc.

Now that I see it in context, and understand what and how ancient it is, I'm gobsmacked and even offended that you, yes you, pawned off that pic of bedrock as some new layering of dust.

For your part that was either genuinely lazy to not investigate what that image actually shows, or extremely disingenuous of you to present it as something other than what you knew it to be.

Stop trying to misrepresent reality to fit your unsupported theories.

I'm disappointed and rather offended by your actions.

:(:mad:
 
WTC Dust said:
Remember that decision I told you that I made a long time ago? I'm presenting 9/11 to dunderheads, not to a scientific audience, until such time as a scientific audience exists. Every bit of notation you put on an image takes away meaning, when the audience is naive. Labeling all that up is not going to do a better job at explaining everything, at least in my opinion.

This is not a peer reviewed work.
Click to expand...

This is a lie and an evasion.
 
WTC Dust said:
You're right. The writers of the article couldn't figure out how bedrock could possibly exist in the basement of the WTC. I hope you catch my drift. The photo captions were pretty incredulous, so I give the journalist an A for noticing the wee-oo wee-oo factor in that story.:boggled:
Click to expand...

This is an evasion and downright disingenuous.

The entire Manhattan skyline shows clearly where the bedrock closest to the surface and is easiest to build tall upon. It's under ALL the skyscrapers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom